6 ms·

>Should a drug kingpin who built a global network that facilitated the transfer of illegal substances who was willing to kill people to protect that enterprise

>Should a drug kingpin who built a global network that facilitated the transfer of illegal substances who was willing to kill people to protect that enterprise only get 10 years? The murder for hire claims lack necessary evidence to convict. Outside that it becomes a question of whether platform owners are responsible for the content on their platform. I am personally in favor of content owners being responsible. I think Mark Zuckerberg should be in prison. However, Mark Zuckerberg is not in prison, and continues to wreak havoc on humanity. Why is Ulbricht responsible for what happened on his platform, but Zuckerberg is not? In my view, Ulbricht should be free so long as Zuckerberg is free.

duped 4y ago
Facebook has and continues to police its platform for illegal activity and cooperates with law enforcement. That's not to say they don't facilitate horrible crimes, but they make some effort not to. Facebook also wasn't created for the express purpose of operating drug trafficking. Ulbricht created a website to sell drugs and made efforts not to police the platform. It's pretty clear what the difference is between someone who makes a platform that can be used by bad actors but makes efforts to stop them, versus someone who makes a platform for bad actors and tries to protect them.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  To me, it feels more like Facebook selectively facilitates the crimes of some and polices the crimes of others. There's names of people in the public Congressional record that you cannot put in any post in any context. The 2020 riots were coordinated on FB. According to the White House press secretary, the WH sends lists of people to Facebook to censor who did not commit crimes. If you are successfully opposed to the regime, for example popular voices against US criminal actions regarding Ukraine, you get nerfed. Azov Batallion was previously banned from FB because they are literally Nazis, but ever since the government started giving weapons to these Nazis you can praise them without concern you will get banned.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    >because they are literally Nazis Because they wanted to appease russia, which proven to be futile.
    - kragen 4y ago
      No, Facebook banned them because they were literally Nazis. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment#Neo-Nazism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment#Neo-Nazism: > The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia,[60][16] with connections to neo-Nazism[214] and members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia, and expressing neo-Nazi views.[58][215] > The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel (or a mirrored variation of it),[216][217][218][219] a German heraldic charge inspired by historic wolf traps adopted by the Nazi Party and by WW2 German military units. Its insignia also used to feature the Black Sun,[220][221][222][211][209] both of which remain two popular neo-Nazi symbols.[210][194][220][215] Azov soldiers have worn fascist or Nazi-associated symbols on their uniforms,[223] including swastikas and SS symbols.[23] In 2014, the German ZDF television network showed images of Azov fighters wearing helmets with swastika symbols and "the SS runes of Hitler's infamous black-uniformed elite corps".[224] In 2015, Marcin Ogdowski, a Polish war correspondent, gained access to one of Azov's bases located in the former holiday resort Majak; Azov fighters showed him Nazi tattoos as well as Nazi emblems on their uniforms.[225][16]
- sneak 4y ago
  > Facebook has and continues to police its platform for illegal activity and cooperates with law enforcement. This is jurisdiction-dependent. Facebook (a US entity) does things in other countries that would be illegal in the US, such as in Vietnam where it turns over identity information of protesters to police without due process, for beatings/torture purposes. > Ulbricht created a website to sell drugs and made efforts not to police the platform. There is another separate moral question about whether or not this should be illegal at all. Even if you think it should, most people agree that the penalties imposed for same in the USA are insanely disproportionate. Jimmy Carter once said: "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed." There's also the small issue of the hundreds of billions of dollars of whoring and drug retailing that happens via WhatsApp and Facebook and Instagram DMs. WhatsApp is literally the biggest drug marketplace on planet Earth. Nobody seems to bat an eye at the fact that Meta/Facebook could but does not police these. The other commenter is right: If Zuckerberg is free, then so should DPR be.
  - azinman2 4y ago
    This is preposterous. Did you ever go on the Silk Road? It was very clearly a large marketplace of nearly only illegal items (drugs, guns, etc). Your belief in the law doesn’t change its status. What he did was very illegal, with all use cases to support illegal activity. This wasn’t about possession for an individual, it was a mechanism for large scale distribution of illegal products. It’s apples and oranges to compare the two.
    - sneak 4y ago
      Something being illegal doesn't make that thing wrong.
      - throwaway654329 4y ago
        Indeed. Consider the inverse situation: Imagine if Catholics who tithe were investigated, prosecuted, and convicted by the same standards. You’d have to imagine it because while many of us know about the child sexual assault scandals in the Catholic Church, those that tithe certainly should and usually do know. They’re generally understood to be paying money for the good parts of the Church and not the obviously illegal criminal conspiracies protected and promulgated by the Church. So while it’s probably illegal, it’s probably not directly wrong and certainly isn’t being treated as a serious criminal conspiracy normally would be. Meanwhile for making a website for an illicit market that explicitly sought to reduce violence between people who would otherwise buy or sell their drugs in a situation classically prone to violence — big U received not one but two life sentences. America has some extremely strange investigation, prosecution, sentencing, and incarceration priorities. One can reasonably call them absurd and unjust, but many Americans will simply tell you that he deserves what he gets. They don’t remark if the rest of us deserve it as well. We are all poorer for this kind of a railroading.
trhway 4y ago
>The murder for hire claims lack necessary evidence to convict. Yep, the available "evidence" comes from those corrupt federal agents who robbed MtGox, and who fabricated the evidence which prevented Ulbricht's bail. The murder for hire wasn't proven, yet it was used to significantly enhance the sentence, basically a loophole allowing to punish for alleged acts without "proven beyond reasonable doubt" for those acts. So, in short the trial is tainted beyond any salvage. Note - i have no idea whether Ulbricht did it or not.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Yes, the agents probably deserve longer sentences than Ulbricht, if only because they misused State power, which is inherently worse than any private activity. But we should get the authors and participants in the torture regime first.
  - rdbell 4y ago
    Abuse of state power is like an adult bullying children to steal their lunch money. One-sided and totally despicable.
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    How did they abuse state power? What evidence is there of that (that’s admissible)? Asking because I’ve read the story of Silk Road but didn’t hear about this other than the bitcoin theft
    - trhway 4y ago
      >other than the bitcoin theft what can be worse abuse of state power than that, or what other purpose for abusing state power other than money? It seems that everything else what they did kind of flows from the theft. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-silk-road-task-force-agent-pleads-guilty-money-laundering-and-obstruction https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-silk-road-task-force-a... : >Bridges’ plea agreement also established that he obstructed the Baltimore federal grand jury’s investigations of Silk Road and Ulbricht in a number of ways, including by impeding the ability of the investigation to fully utilize a cooperator’s access to Silk Road. That grand jury indictment in Baltimore based on false info from those agents was the reason for denying bail to Ulbricht, and basically prejudiced the judge in the main case. >According to his plea agreement, Bridges admitted that in January 2013 he used an administrator account on the Silk Road website There seems to be enough indications to support for a variety of speculations like for example that the agents may have scapegoated Ulbricht, say may be he was an admin or a dev there and was made into the "kingpin", or something like this. Again it is impossible to say anything for sure as the trial wasn't just a fruit of poison tree, it were total poisoned deadlands.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
29athrowaway 4y ago
Because Facebook was not built with the deliberate intent of facilitating illicit sales.
- throwaway654329 4y ago
  No? Zuckerberg wasn’t in it to sell illicit drugs, though that apparently happens often, and it seems clear that data and targeting of specific people based on that data was a conscious strategy. That might not be illicit in America but it sure is in Europe. One rule for the rich in America, another rule for the rest of us.

duped 4y ago

Facebook has and continues to police its platform for illegal activity and cooperates with law enforcement. That's not to say they don't facilitate horrible crimes, but they make some effort not to. Facebook also wasn't created for the express purpose of operating drug trafficking. Ulbricht created a website to sell drugs and made efforts not to police the platform. It's pretty clear what the difference is between someone who makes a platform that can be used by bad actors but makes efforts to stop them, versus someone who makes a platform for bad actors and tries to protect them.

Consultant32452 4y ago
To me, it feels more like Facebook selectively facilitates the crimes of some and polices the crimes of others. There's names of people in the public Congressional record that you cannot put in any post in any context. The 2020 riots were coordinated on FB. According to the White House press secretary, the WH sends lists of people to Facebook to censor who did not commit crimes. If you are successfully opposed to the regime, for example popular voices against US criminal actions regarding Ukraine, you get nerfed. Azov Batallion was previously banned from FB because they are literally Nazis, but ever since the government started giving weapons to these Nazis you can praise them without concern you will get banned.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  >because they are literally Nazis Because they wanted to appease russia, which proven to be futile.
  - kragen 4y ago
    No, Facebook banned them because they were literally Nazis. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment#Neo-Nazism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment#Neo-Nazism: > The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia,[60][16] with connections to neo-Nazism[214] and members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia, and expressing neo-Nazi views.[58][215] > The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel (or a mirrored variation of it),[216][217][218][219] a German heraldic charge inspired by historic wolf traps adopted by the Nazi Party and by WW2 German military units. Its insignia also used to feature the Black Sun,[220][221][222][211][209] both of which remain two popular neo-Nazi symbols.[210][194][220][215] Azov soldiers have worn fascist or Nazi-associated symbols on their uniforms,[223] including swastikas and SS symbols.[23] In 2014, the German ZDF television network showed images of Azov fighters wearing helmets with swastika symbols and "the SS runes of Hitler's infamous black-uniformed elite corps".[224] In 2015, Marcin Ogdowski, a Polish war correspondent, gained access to one of Azov's bases located in the former holiday resort Majak; Azov fighters showed him Nazi tattoos as well as Nazi emblems on their uniforms.[225][16]
sneak 4y ago
> Facebook has and continues to police its platform for illegal activity and cooperates with law enforcement. This is jurisdiction-dependent. Facebook (a US entity) does things in other countries that would be illegal in the US, such as in Vietnam where it turns over identity information of protesters to police without due process, for beatings/torture purposes. > Ulbricht created a website to sell drugs and made efforts not to police the platform. There is another separate moral question about whether or not this should be illegal at all. Even if you think it should, most people agree that the penalties imposed for same in the USA are insanely disproportionate. Jimmy Carter once said: "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed." There's also the small issue of the hundreds of billions of dollars of whoring and drug retailing that happens via WhatsApp and Facebook and Instagram DMs. WhatsApp is literally the biggest drug marketplace on planet Earth. Nobody seems to bat an eye at the fact that Meta/Facebook could but does not police these. The other commenter is right: If Zuckerberg is free, then so should DPR be.
- azinman2 4y ago
  This is preposterous. Did you ever go on the Silk Road? It was very clearly a large marketplace of nearly only illegal items (drugs, guns, etc). Your belief in the law doesn’t change its status. What he did was very illegal, with all use cases to support illegal activity. This wasn’t about possession for an individual, it was a mechanism for large scale distribution of illegal products. It’s apples and oranges to compare the two.
  - sneak 4y ago
    Something being illegal doesn't make that thing wrong.
    - throwaway654329 4y ago
      Indeed. Consider the inverse situation: Imagine if Catholics who tithe were investigated, prosecuted, and convicted by the same standards. You’d have to imagine it because while many of us know about the child sexual assault scandals in the Catholic Church, those that tithe certainly should and usually do know. They’re generally understood to be paying money for the good parts of the Church and not the obviously illegal criminal conspiracies protected and promulgated by the Church. So while it’s probably illegal, it’s probably not directly wrong and certainly isn’t being treated as a serious criminal conspiracy normally would be. Meanwhile for making a website for an illicit market that explicitly sought to reduce violence between people who would otherwise buy or sell their drugs in a situation classically prone to violence — big U received not one but two life sentences. America has some extremely strange investigation, prosecution, sentencing, and incarceration priorities. One can reasonably call them absurd and unjust, but many Americans will simply tell you that he deserves what he gets. They don’t remark if the rest of us deserve it as well. We are all poorer for this kind of a railroading.

trhway 4y ago

>The murder for hire claims lack necessary evidence to convict. Yep, the available "evidence" comes from those corrupt federal agents who robbed MtGox, and who fabricated the evidence which prevented Ulbricht's bail. The murder for hire wasn't proven, yet it was used to significantly enhance the sentence, basically a loophole allowing to punish for alleged acts without "proven beyond reasonable doubt" for those acts. So, in short the trial is tainted beyond any salvage. Note - i have no idea whether Ulbricht did it or not.

ncmncm 4y ago
Yes, the agents probably deserve longer sentences than Ulbricht, if only because they misused State power, which is inherently worse than any private activity. But we should get the authors and participants in the torture regime first.
- rdbell 4y ago
  Abuse of state power is like an adult bullying children to steal their lunch money. One-sided and totally despicable.
- throwoutway 4y ago
  How did they abuse state power? What evidence is there of that (that’s admissible)? Asking because I’ve read the story of Silk Road but didn’t hear about this other than the bitcoin theft
  - trhway 4y ago
    >other than the bitcoin theft what can be worse abuse of state power than that, or what other purpose for abusing state power other than money? It seems that everything else what they did kind of flows from the theft. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-silk-road-task-force-agent-pleads-guilty-money-laundering-and-obstruction https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-silk-road-task-force-a... : >Bridges’ plea agreement also established that he obstructed the Baltimore federal grand jury’s investigations of Silk Road and Ulbricht in a number of ways, including by impeding the ability of the investigation to fully utilize a cooperator’s access to Silk Road. That grand jury indictment in Baltimore based on false info from those agents was the reason for denying bail to Ulbricht, and basically prejudiced the judge in the main case. >According to his plea agreement, Bridges admitted that in January 2013 he used an administrator account on the Silk Road website There seems to be enough indications to support for a variety of speculations like for example that the agents may have scapegoated Ulbricht, say may be he was an admin or a dev there and was made into the "kingpin", or something like this. Again it is impossible to say anything for sure as the trial wasn't just a fruit of poison tree, it were total poisoned deadlands.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

29athrowaway 4y ago

Because Facebook was not built with the deliberate intent of facilitating illicit sales.

throwaway654329 4y ago
No? Zuckerberg wasn’t in it to sell illicit drugs, though that apparently happens often, and it seems clear that data and targeting of specific people based on that data was a conscious strategy. That might not be illicit in America but it sure is in Europe. One rule for the rich in America, another rule for the rest of us.