Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Bookmakers and online casinos will be able to advertise on Google, the world's most popular internet search engine, from today.
The company, which yesterday received royal approval when the Queen visited its British headquarters near Victoria station, was condemned as "irresponsible" by MPs and church leaders for lifting its four-year ban and allowing gambling companies to buy "sponsored links" on its site in Britain.
Google introduced a global ban on gambling adverts on its site in 2004, but decided to end it for British customers after rules on television advertising for bookmakers, casinos and gambling websites were relaxed.
Google insisted that all advertisers using the service would have to be regulated in Britain or Europe and would have to have internet links to organisations helping problem gamblers.
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......
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.
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
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..."
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.