13 ms·

That seems a bit harsh given that he wasn't directly involved in the trafficking. Was he a facilitator? Sure, but most drug trafficking is facilitated through s

That seems a bit harsh given that he wasn't directly involved in the trafficking. Was he a facilitator? Sure, but most drug trafficking is facilitated through systems that are considered legal: post office, google searches, emails, medicine labs, etc. Yet, why is the moderator of a platform the one who has to pay the biggest price? So considering that, yes, his punishment far exceeds his involvement in the illegal activity. The punishment should've been shared by the dozen, if not hundreds, of other parties/groups/dynamics involved. History has proved that killing the platform doesn't fix the problem.

hndamien 8y ago
Ironically the platform was fixing the problem.
gtirloni 8y ago
In other words, isn't a knowingly facilitator directly involved in the illegal activity he's facilitating? This discussion is clouded because it's was an online platform and it was pretending to be a beacon of user privacy and civil liberties (which it was not). Imagine a situation where you're renting rooms in your house for criminals to conduct crimes (and that's your main selling point, nobody is pretending you're renting those rooms because you want simply to help people), would we be discussing whether you deserve a harsh sentence or not? I don't think so. The difference between the Silk Road website and Google/Postal Office is that they take reasonable measures against illegal activity on their platform when they are informed of that.