
Google Bans Bail Bond Ads, Invites Regulation - jseliger
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/google-bans-bail-bond-ads.html
======
jfasi
Note that they're banning bail bond _ads_ , not _links._ This means if you
search for "bail bonds" you'll see organic links but no ads. This is a crucial
difference that this post seems to overlook.

The search algorithm goes way out of its way to determine some measure of
"legitimacy." Obviously this is a vague and hard-to-define measure, but the
goal is commendable: show results that are both relevant to the user according
to Google's relevance metrics and legitimate according to who links to it,
quality of the page, freshness, etc. Whatever qualms you might have about the
vagaries of the search algorithm, you can't dispute that it's difficult to
game.

Meanwhile ads are chosen by what brings the most long term value to Google.
Gaming this system is much easier, and usually begins with paying more per
click. This favors advertisers with higher margins, which is harmless for
innocuous queries like "flowers" which make up the bulk of search ads. For
bail bonds, however, this favors advertisers with higher margins, which in
turn rewards exploitative providers over the legitimate bail bondsmen this
author seems to think will be harmed. If anything, this is actually a boon to
the more socially-minded bail bondsmen this article is concerned about:
exploitative bail bonds businesses that go out of their way to saddle their
customers with debt will not appear on the top of the page, raising more
legitimate ones.

Another point: one of the consequences of being able to pay for ranking is you
can place ads on terms that are not really related to your business. For
instance, "Home Depot" queries tend to show ads for Lowes and other
competitors. In a similar way, searching for "bail bond counseling" and other
terms tends to include at least one for-profit bail bond operation that offers
no or nominal counseling. Meanwhile if there are no ads, then the legitimate
counseling services will float to the top of the page. Likewise for queries
for all the other services this article claims will be hurt.

Source/disclaimer: These are my personal opinions as someone who works in ads
at Google, (but was not involved in this decision). All my points come from
publicly available info. Please don't mistake this for anything but my own
views.

~~~
ksk
>Whatever qualms you might have about the vagaries of the search algorithm,
you can't dispute that it's difficult to game.

Nothing personal against you, but as a user I find that google's algorithms
are trivially gamed by the SEO industry. Apart from the ads themselves, I
personally think a small ranking boost for pages that don't run ads will go a
long way to clean up the search results.

~~~
maccard
> I personally think a small ranking boost for pages that don't run ads will
> go a long way to clean up the search results.

It's highly unlikely that google (a company whose business model is selling
ads) will prioritise sites without ads.

~~~
ksk
It was unlikely that they would include an adblocker in their browser, but
they did. Personally, I don't like Google as a company, but they do do weird
stuff like that.

They're going to still be making tons of money from paid ads in the search
results, youtube, cloud services, and other google properties.

------
rayiner
> Studies show that for-profit bail bond providers make most of their revenue
> from communities of color and low income neighborhoods when they are at
> their most vulnerable

And doctors make most of their revenue from sick people! Makers of cheap food
make most of their revenue from poor hungry people! Makers of cheap cars make
most of their revenue from low-income people just trying to get to work!

The level of ignorance in Google's statement is breathtaking, reflecting the
mistaken view that selling goods and services to poor people is a bad thing.
Bail bondsmen provide a valuable service: they allow people for whom bail is
required, because a judge deems them a risk for not showing up at trial, to be
released and keep going to work.

If bail bonds are being disproportionately required for people in low-income
and minority communities, that's the government's fault. Targeting the bail
bondsmen doesn't fix that problem--if those people can't make bail, they'll
just stay in jail and potentially lose their jobs. Indeed, preventing them
from advertising makes the problem worse, because it reduces competition in
the market that would drive interest rates down.

~~~
conistonwater
Reading Google's statement perhaps rather too charitably, perhaps this might
be what they meant to emphasize?

> _including through opaque financing offers that can keep people in debt for
> months or years._

This would be a way to make their logic not horrible.

~~~
rayiner
"Opaque financing offers" is handwaving. If its anything like payday lending,
the real complaint is that the bonds "keep people in debt for months or
years." But that's not because of opaque financing, but because poor people
don't have much free cash flow to service a loan, and are bad credit risks
statistically so the interest on that loan has to be relatively high. Removing
the ability to advertising makes both problems worse, by reducing competition.

~~~
joshuamorton
Payday lending goes beyond that. Its rent-seeking in the same way that
reordering charges to repeatedly overdraft someone is rent-seeking. Sure
"don't be poor" is one way to solve that issue, but even a poor and reasonably
reliable person can be taken advantage of by payday loans (whose interest
rates are always >100% APR, which is 10-20x more than anything else). There's
a reason payday loans interest rates are capped [in many jurisdictions]: a
500% APR isn't something that arises normally.

~~~
rayiner
That’s not what “rent seeking” means.

~~~
joshuamorton
>Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or
individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any
benefits to society through wealth creation.

Does reordering charges to overdraft someone more than they should be provide
economic benefit to society at large? No. Does it give the bank additional
economic gain? Yes.

Does charging _higher than necessary_ interest rates to low-income, low-
information consumers provide economic benefit to society at large? No.[1]
Does it give the lender additional economic gain? Yes.

It is rent seeking, quite clearly.

[1]: In fact, there's a decent argument to be made that in the long term it
lowers the velocity of money and actively harms the economy.

~~~
rayiner
That can't be the right definition of rent seeking. Consider the decision of
what price to sell an iPhone at. Selling it at $600 versus $500 does not
create additional wealth, but does result in economic gain for Apple. But by
your reasoning, setting the price at anything above cost is "rent seeking."

Wikipedia has a more specific definition of rent seeking:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-
seeking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking).

> Rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent (i.e., the portion of
> income paid to a factor of production in excess of what is needed to keep it
> employed in its current use) by _manipulating the social or political
> environment in which economic activities occur_ , rather than by creating
> new wealth.

With regards to pay-day lending, what is "higher than necessary?" Payday
lending is an incredibly competitive market--not only is there a payday lender
on every corner in poor neighborhoods, but such loans are easily available
online, and there is competition from pawn shops, etc. Interest rates for
payday loans almost certainly reflect a competitive market price accounting
for the risk of default.

------
skybrian
Some markets are hard to police at scale. I'm reminded of Google's ongoing
problems with fake locksmith listings [1].

One way to solve the problem is to try harder to police it. Another (if
alternative ways of searching are better) is to get out of the market. This
can be a reasonable decision even if it's a perfectly legitimate market.

I'm guessing Google doesn't want to devote the resources into figuring out
which bail bond advertisers are legitimate. They have lots of other rules
about not accepting ads for legitimate businesses.

[1] [https://marketingland.com/locksmiths-try-sue-google-fake-
loc...](https://marketingland.com/locksmiths-try-sue-google-fake-local-
listings-208189)

------
CobrastanJorji
> Indeed, [bail bonds] are a necessary service for the legal system to
> function.

This is untrue. While bail bonds are a major feature of the U.S. legal system,
removing the whole bail bond system would be an improvement.

~~~
gnicholas
> _removing the whole bail bond system would be an improvement._

How would this improve the system? This would mean that only rich people who
can bail themselves out would be able to await trial as free men/women. Poorer
people would stay in jail and presumably lose their jobs.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
I was suggesting that the entire idea of bail money was a bad one, for exactly
the reason you describe. Rich people simply leave a deposit, and poor people
effectively pay a permanent fine of 10% of that deposit regardless of their
innocence.

The idea of ensuring someone shows up to trial by holding onto something they
value isn't terrible, but the implementation certainly is. If you want to set
bail, why is it based mostly on the crime and not on the wealth of the
suspect? $1000 of bail means nothing to a billionaire and everything to
someone living hand to mouth.

~~~
gnicholas
What would be a good replacement for the bail system?

> _$1000 of bail means nothing to a billionaire and everything to someone
> living hand to mouth._

This is surely true, but also irrelevant since bail is set in relation to the
individual's means. Pretending that a rich person could ever have such
insignificant bail is disingenuous.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
I'm no expert here, so perhaps you can enlighten me. Isn't the whole idea of a
"bail schedule" or a "bail algorithm" to have set amounts of bail for a
certain crime, like "this person is accused of a DUI, has committed no
previous crimes, bail is therefore $1000?" Does wealth provide any sort of
multiplier?

~~~
gnicholas
It certainly can be a multiplier. See $66M bail in the case of this wealthy
heiress (whom I believe had no previous record):
[http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-
canada/article/...](http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-
canada/article/2085665/chinese-born-heiress-posts-us66m-bail-california)

This was undoubtedly also because she was a flight risk. But this is the case
with all super-wealthy people who have means to flee the jurisdiction (private
jets or access to other private transportation).

This doesn't mean a rich person will have a high bail amount for all types of
crimes, but this would be taking into consideration their ties to the
community (own a mansion in town? You're probably not going to leave it
behind. Ditto for your high-paying job.) Not saying any of this is fair — just
that this is how the bail-setting factors get applied.

------
SilasX
Is this just Copenhagen Ethics[1] striking again? "Bail bonds companies are
associated with something bad (the current criminal justice system), so they
inherent the taint of evil."

What do they expect is going to happen when you make it harder for potential
customers to find alternatives to the loudest bail bondsman? You just make it
easier for the fewer, established bondsmen to offer harsher terms.

With that said, there _is_ a right way to approach problems like this[3]:
actually _help the ostensible victims_ find a good alternative that does care
about not exploiting them.

For an example of the model, here's my experience when I visited a California
check-cashing place (long story): before cashing the check, on ridiculous
terms, they walk you through several cheaper alternatives (no idea if this is
a legal requirement).

I don't see anything in their announcement[2] that suggests they'll take this
approach, which would be something like: replace the "bad ads" with ones for
the superior, non-profit alternatives that they want these communities to use.
It's just unhelpful moralizing from advocates with a dubious model of the
harm's causation.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855)

[2] Warning: it will probably set off your add blocker:
[https://adwords.googleblog.com/2018/05/google-bans-ads-
for-b...](https://adwords.googleblog.com/2018/05/google-bans-ads-for-bail-
bonds-services.html)

[3] by "this", I mean a case where there's a bad system, and a for profit
group that's offering a local improvement but seems slimy nonetheless

~~~
inlined
Many other posters suggest that native search results (still allowed) will
better find legitimate and helpful bail bond companies

~~~
SilasX
I saw one or two other posters, and that's conjecture at best. If bail bonds
companies really are exploitive and their announcement isn't just virtue
signaling, they should be _actively pointing_ people to the orgs that aren't
exploitive (and have an actual model for what counts as not being exploitive),
not just praying that the exploitive ones don't learn SEO.

------
kevin_b_er
I disagree with the author on the goodness of bail bond services. A bond
should be payable but a hardship upon the person. The very existence of bail
bondsman means the bonds themselves are so frequently beyond any reasonable
cost to the humans.

That the bail bondsman is also somehow involved in legal advice navigating
pretrial conditions is a further crock of excrement upon the system.

Also I'm astounded the Koch brothers are involved in this, and I'm curious
what their profit motive is as I don't believe they have a single bit of
altruism in them.

~~~
rayiner
> Also I'm astounded the Koch brothers are involved in this, and I'm curious
> what their profit motive is as I don't believe they have a single bit of
> altruism in them.

The Koch brothers have a vested interest in pointing out examples (and this is
one of them), where liberal feel-good policies make the lives of actual poor
people worse.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The Koch brothers have a vested interest in pointing out examples (and this
> is one of them), where liberal feel-good policies make the lives of actual
> poor people worse.

The cash bail system and the bail bonds industry it supports are not “liberal
feel good” policies.

~~~
rayiner
Demonizing and discouraging industries that cater to poor people as
“exploitative” (fast food, pay day lending, low quality housing) is a liberal
feel good policy.

~~~
dragonwriter
That would make your argument coherent (if still wrong), if Koch Industries
was in this discussion as an opponent rather than one of the groups Google
worked with on the issue to come to this policy.

Opposition to the cash bail system and the government-spawned industry it
supports, while to be sure prominent on the left, also has notable support
among (even right-)libertarians.

~~~
rayiner
It's not clear to me from the coverage whether the Kochs support Google's idea
specifically, or bail bond reform generally:
[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/google-and-koch-brothers-
tea...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/google-and-koch-brothers-team-up-for-
bail-reform.html).

~~~
dragonwriter
> It's not clear to me from the coverage whether the Kochs support Google's
> idea specifically

Perhaps, but your argument about their interest in the present issue only made
sense if they were overt critics, when the only reason they are in the
discussion isn't criticism of the policy but Google _crediting_ Koch when
announcing the policy.

~~~
rayiner
No, you're right, I was confused about what exactly their involvement was.

------
sigstoat
if they want to improve the bail situation, they could help fund the setup of
more organizations like the bronx freedom fund.
[http://www.thebronxfreedomfund.org/](http://www.thebronxfreedomfund.org/)

the stats on the freedom fund's site don't make it sound as though you're
doing anyone any favors by leaving them in jail. owing money to the bail
bondsman isn't great, but it sounds better than losing your job because you're
stuck in jail for weeks awaiting trial.

~~~
aikol
Huh, did they copy Brooklyn Bail Fund?

[https://brooklynbailfund.org/](https://brooklynbailfund.org/)

------
georgek
This is a slippery slope for Google, and raises questions about their handling
of ads for other industries where questionably ethical and/or illegal ads are
run on Google.

As an example from my industry (full disclosure- as cofounder of an Obamacare-
only startup, I am very biased here):

Search for 'Obamacare' on Google and you'll be presented with ads for sites
that do not sell actual Obamacare plans, but use misleading language
suggesting they do. The goal is to bait and switch - bring people in promising
Obamacare plans, and then sell them plans that pay higher commissions but do
not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act such as no restrictions
on preexisting conditions, coverage of maternity services, paying for
hospitalizion, etc etc. This is definitely unethical (people think they are
covered for e.g. hospital visits and aren't) and in some cases illegal under
state insurance law, but state enforcement personnel don't have the bandwidth
to audit Google ads, and Google's auditors don't appear to have the industry-
specific knowledge to catch that behavior.

Given this move with bail bonds, will Google seek to more broadly enforce an
ethical standard on its platform (not to mention laws)? Or is this a one off?
Note that insurance is a significant portion of Google's ad revenue, whereas
bail bonds are negligible.

------
dragonwriter
> Google’s decision to ban ads from bail bond providers is deeply disturbing
> and wrongheaded.

The case made for that is distinctly underwhelming.

> Bail bonds are a legal service.

That doesn't mean Google needs to carry ads for them.

> Indeed, they are a necessary service for the legal system to function.

No, they aren't. They are a necessary service for the abusive system of
excessive cash bail to function, but the entire system of cash bail is facing
widespread (and not along traditional party lines) criticism as being
incompatible with the fundamental values of our legal system.

But even if this description was accurate, that doesn't mean Google carrying
advertising for the industry is necessary.

> Whatever the cause, preventing advertising doesn’t reduce the need to pay
> bail it simply makes it harder to find a lender.

No, it doesn't, as doing a Google Search for “bail bonds _< city>_” and
comparing the advertising results, map results, and organic web search results
would show.

> Restrictions on advertising in the bail industry, as elsewhere, are also
> likely to reduce competition and raise prices.

The source cited for the argument for the general effect here studied effect
of advertising _taxes_ , which increase the price for equal visibility;
whether the Google ban is in any way comparable really depends what the main
mechanism is for people finding bail bonds through Google-placed ads. If it's
mostly search advertisement on relevant terms, banning the ads gives organic
results the same effect that paid ads use to have, and reduces the cost of
visibility, which would have the exact opposite effect of an advertising tax.
This would, therefore, be expected to _increase_ competition and _lower_
prices.

~~~
rayiner
If Google wants to lobby to get rid of bail bonds, more power to them. But
focusing on bail bondsmen is (a distinctly liberal sort of) feel-good
ignorance: focusing on the “evil” business instead of the state that is
actually causing the problem.

There is a good argument that the government should ensure adequate water
supplies in the event of disaater. But if the government fails to do that,
banning private businesses from “gouging” people by selling water at market
rates feels good but actually hurts people. Targeting bail bondsmen in a world
where the government abuses minority and low income communities by requiring
excessive bail is likewise misguided.

~~~
dragonwriter
> If Google wants to lobby to get rid of bail bonds, more power to them. But
> focusing on bail bondsmen

Is exactly what lobbying to get rid of bail _bonds_ is, but not what Google is
doing.

Perhaps you meant “money bail”, not just “bail bonds”. But they are doing
exactly that. Refusing to take money generated by that system and crediting
people working to eliminate the system for that, directing media attention to
the issue and established reform advocates, is a way of doing that.

> banning private businesses from “gouging” people by selling water at market
> rates feels good but actually hurts people

Yes, which is why it would be bad if Google, as you suggest, lobbied against
bail _bonds_. But no one is _banning_ bail bondsmen from selling their
product, Google just isn't taking paid ads from the industry.

------
tbyehl
I've gone to a bondsman twice and neither time was I presented with any
financing options. Perhaps because the bail was only a few thousand dollars,
with the bondsman taking 10% (state law capped at 12% under $10K, 15% over).

The whole infraction -> arrest -> bail -> fines -> probation cycle in my state
is highly punitive. Trivial things can lead to a warrant / arrest. Bondsman
collect their fees, the courts get theirs. If they've sat in jail for a bit,
they may be getting charged for the privilege. Afterwards the person ends up
on probation, which collects more fees and produces more opportunity for
someone to be arrested again over something trivial.

It's nuts, and that's just one tiny aspect of the policing-for-profit economy.

------
whataretensors
Google keeps blanket banning industries because bad actors exist. There are
legitimate ICOs and legitimate bail bond companies, as the author said, and
google decides to not differentiate between them. They are an AI company they
should be able to detect outright scams. Or god forbid they need to hire
someone.

Then Google and Facebook use this and anything else to ask for regulation.
Because regulation for entrenched players is just collusion to prevent
disruption which will bump stock price.

~~~
Guvante
Is disallowing ads but allowing search really that bad for businesses?

~~~
dragonwriter
It's bad for ones that spend a lot on advertising placement to capture
business and make up for with high prices.

------
stevespang
Google: Today, we’re announcing a new policy to prohibit ads that promote bail
bond services from our platforms. Studies show that for-profit bail bond
providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low income
neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable, including through opaque
financing offers that can keep people in debt for months or years.

Well, you could extend that further: governments and their so called "justice
systems" penalize communities of color and low income neighborhoods when they
are at their most vulnerable . . . . expensive defense attorneys, years of
probation fees, court fees, supervisory fees, law enforcement budgets are
among the highest costs for communities. Court appointed lawyers are almost a
sure way these poor folks are going to serve time, while wealthy offenders do
probation or walk.

------
testfoobar
Good for Google. Although their stated reasoning is flawed (bail bondsmen
don't target poor minority communities for any diabolical reason, they target
them because they are part of the entire criminal justice system that targets
minorities), the effect will be positive.

Mixing profit and capitalistic incentives with criminal justice is
fundamentally flawed.

------
cuckcuckspruce
This reminds me of the concept of censor-bait in movies. Filmmakers sometimes
include over the top, obviously gratuitous scenes, images, or language in
their films so that the MPAA ratings board feels like they've done something
when it's cut to later make an R or PG-13 rating.

This feels like Google inviting in regulation here so that lawmakers can feel
like they've done something good and just, and that Google can later rely on
this saying, "Hey now, we're not fighting regulation! We invited you in to
look at the bail bonds thing!"

~~~
dvtrn
Also the concept of "ducking" comes to mind, from the story of the guy who
would talk to a rubber duck while debugging. A former colleague took this to
whole new levels and would implement unit tests that would deliberately fail
and print "Quack" to the terminal as a way of forcing QA to actually execute
tests.

