Google actually banned payday loan ads from their network [1]. I couldn't take your anger seriously after reading that line.
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...
And the parent post is talking about loans with 35% APR still being quite predatory.
[1]Non-AMP link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/05/11...
How is that? 35% APR for short term unsecured credit seems predatory, but it is well in line with what most major credit card companies offer.
It appears the parent poster is arguing Google did ban [all payday loans] while you are arguing that the article says Google did not ban [all payday loans], but instead only banned [loans with interest rates >=36%].
My viewpoint: The article says both points, i.e. Google banned [all payday loans] and Google also banned [all loans (i.e. of the non-payday variety) with interest rates >=36%]
Evidence / Recitation from article:
"...In addition to the broad payday loan ad ban, Google will not display ads from lenders who charge annual interest rates of 36 percent or more in the United States. The same standards will apply to sites that serve as middlemen who connect distressed borrowers to those lenders..."
"...Google announced Wednesday that it will ban all payday loan ads from its site..."
As seen from the first above recitation, the words "in addition to" appears to mean that two separate bans have been enacted: The first ban is for any loan classified as a payday loan. That means a payday loan of any interest rate (i.e. 35%, 25%, even 3%) will be banned. The second ban is for a loan of any type where the interest rate is >= 36%.
Hope that helps, thanks for your time : )