| 8:12 pm on Oct 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
maybe this is Google feeling the pressure of this whole financial crisis.
| 8:20 pm on Oct 17, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Waitaminute - if Google is accepting gambling ads, do they still insist that you can't put adsense ads on gambling websites?
| 8:06 am on Oct 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I think Google will allow adsense ads on gambling websites. But the question is how many of them are approved? This move will get Google more dollars ... err... pounds ;-)
| 12:06 pm on Oct 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Interesting that a search for "gambling help" brings up ads for both bookmakers and companies offering loans alongside the help sites.
What about a new service -"Google Betting Tips" -you search for the 3.30 at Haydock Park and Google suggests which nag to put your money on.....ah yes, I see the Ad is already there......
| 12:24 pm on Oct 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Just another grab for cash from Google!
What is so interesting is that the money has not corrupted their motto of "do no harm". Guess that now harm is relative and a subjective term no longer for the good of community but rather for the good of Google.
Man they made over $1.34 billion (that's right billion) in profits in third quarter alone. If you don't think that they are driven by profit and revenue now in their decisions you are wrong.
| 12:48 pm on Oct 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Just another grab for cash from Google! |
What are you talking about? They are a business if someone is searching for a betting website then all the power to google for letting betting clubs advertise with them. I don't see any problem.
| 2:00 pm on Oct 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
More funny (funny-sad) than anything I think. Reason being: they originally would not allow those type of sites to advertise and now, presumably because of the financial crunch, they will allow them.
Substitution of morals with cash is never a good thing.
| 2:48 pm on Oct 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
There will be sites out there whose visitors will be offended by gambling ads (churches, charities etc). Typically this offers no way to filter apart from identifying and blocking advertisers after the event.
| 6:36 pm on Oct 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Wait, a second, doesn't the US 'reserve' the right to seize their assets, or only if they target US audiences?
| 2:47 pm on Oct 20, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I heard Google contacted several advertisers this morning as their ads were appearing on phrases like Gambling Addictions, Gambling Councillors etc.
Google forced negative keywords on these advertisers.
Tut tut to those irresponsible advertisers
| 2:54 pm on Oct 20, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I've the screenshots to prove it, anyone know a tabloid who will pay for them? :)
| 3:18 pm on Oct 20, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Can someone bring me up to speed on the USA Gambling laws?
Can you walk into a betting club in the USA and bet on football / horses etc?
Can you gamble online?
Can you gamble at horse races etc?
Cheers - RJ
| 3:37 pm on Oct 20, 2008 (gmt 0)|
My Understanding is...
|Can you walk into a betting club in the USA and bet on football / horses etc? |
Yes, but betting clubs are really limited to at the track bookies and casinos in certain states. 17 states in total incl Nevada, New Jersey, Florida etc
Not legally but very difficult to stop site operating from offshore. You’d struggle to get cash into these sites with US Visa / Master Cards
|Can you gamble at horse races etc |
Yes, in the 17 states that has licences.
| 11:47 pm on Oct 20, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|There will be sites out there whose visitors will be offended by gambling ads (churches, charities etc). Typically this offers no way to filter apart from identifying and blocking advertisers after the event. |
If church web pages have content that attract those kind of ads, then as they say... "Hell, mend them..."
| 12:55 am on Oct 21, 2008 (gmt 0)|
In the U.S., according to the constitution, only "interstate" commerce can be regulated by Federal law. (And so far as gambling goes, by current U.S. law, regulation entails prohibition.)
But each state and many Indian reservations have their own regulations for activity within their own boundaries, which the U.S. government cannot constitutionally touch. Depending on the state, that "regulation" may be prohibition, or may allow specific kinds of betting (e.g., only parimutual betting on athletic events) or may allow specific monopolistic sponsors of betting (e.g., state-sanctioned lotteries)--whatever the state politicos think they can get away with. This way, for practical law-enforcement purposes, the jurisdiction has a local neck to wring, a local entity to seize, when (not 'if') gambling activity turns fraudulent--when the game is run crooked.
Of course, gambling entities based in another country but targeting U.S. residents are by definition engaged in interstate, and therefore illegal, activity. One offshore scofflaw haven took the U.S. to court over this: the court ruled against the U.S., but the U.S. government continues to take the position that its law is absolutely nondiscriminatory: anyone they caught gambling across state lines, internal or external, was a criminal. And while they AGREED to honor the court ruling, they HAVE to honor the constitution, so in a conflict the constitution wins.