3 ms·

I fully agree it's a hard problem, but Facebook is the one telling us they can be the police. If you really feel you can't operate a business without doing crim

I fully agree it's a hard problem, but Facebook is the one telling us they can be the police. If you really feel you can't operate a business without doing crimes, you shouldn't operate the business. It's understandable - there are some businesses that it takes too much skill to operate without doing a crime and so people don't (there are lots of things that banks won't do that fall into this category). Facebook, by operating in this area, is saying they think they can do it. > Someone runs an illegal ad on Facebook The problem, to me, is that everything you said applies down stream too. You can't be sure the person purchasing the ad is trying to commit a crime either (perhaps they were hacked, perhaps they were dumb, etc). If you are promoting the "this is complex, actually" view - it's complex at every level. The problem for society is that Facebook, as the company offering the service that occasionally breaks the law, is in a nice position. They get to profit off law breaking every once in a while and, as you say, it's hard to feel like it is possible to offer this service in such a way to perfectly avoid doing all crimes. So you get into this situation where Facebook (and everyone else at that scale) can do some crimes, but not so many that it's a big part of their business. It seems bad.

Bluestein 2y ago
> can do some crimes Simple solution: Upon their inability to abide by the law, downright outlaw them and shut them down at the second, known, provable count.- Zuckbook is a known evil, making billions off of depressed vulnerable population's attention, and causing untold amounts of psychological damage.- The least they could positively do is police their system, to the ninth percentile or better.- Or be shut down.- The next incumbent will figure it out, rather fast.-
malnourish 2y ago
> They get to profit off law breaking every once in a while Make Facebook liable and required to forfeit money earned from the criminal activity.
- aeturnum 2y ago
  This is technically already the situation and you can easily get them to pay up for each violation you prove in court. Good luck!
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> If you really feel you can't operate a business without doing crimes, you shouldn't operate the business. It isn't Facebook doing crimes, they're a company whose customers are doing crimes. > The problem, to me, is that everything you said applies down stream too. You can't be sure the person purchasing the ad is trying to commit a crime either (perhaps they were hacked, perhaps they were dumb, etc). Which is why we have investigators and courts, to sort this out. When the police execute the warrant and find the drugs, the person's claim that they were hacked is not going to hold a lot of water. Whereas if they find no drugs but seize the computer and find malware on it, then they can investigate the malware network and find the actual perpetrators. This is law enforcement's job. To figure out who actually did the crime and charge them with it. Facebook can't do that and shouldn't be expected to. > So you get into this situation where Facebook (and everyone else at that scale) can do some crimes, but not so many that it's a big part of their business. It seems bad. Why is it bad? Why is it even expected to be bad? It's true of every business whatsoever. A major hardware store that sells duct tape will have as customers some number of kidnappers who use it to tape the mouths of their victims. The kidnappers will go to a gas station and buy gas. These companies are thereby profiting in some small way from crime. But so what? Go arrest the kidnappers, the hardware store is irrelevant.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  > It isn't Facebook doing crimes, they're a company whose customers are doing crimes. Aiding and abetting is a thing.
  - voxic11 2y ago
    Aiding and abetting requires intent. If I am a bus driver and a bank robber happens to ride on my bus on his way to rob a bank I am not aiding and abetting because I had no intent or knowledge of the crime. > To convict as a principal of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted the principal(s) in each essential element of the crime https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2474-elements-aiding-and-abetting https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...

Bluestein 2y ago

> can do some crimes Simple solution: Upon their inability to abide by the law, downright outlaw them and shut them down at the second, known, provable count.- Zuckbook is a known evil, making billions off of depressed vulnerable population's attention, and causing untold amounts of psychological damage.- The least they could positively do is police their system, to the ninth percentile or better.- Or be shut down.- The next incumbent will figure it out, rather fast.-

malnourish 2y ago

> They get to profit off law breaking every once in a while Make Facebook liable and required to forfeit money earned from the criminal activity.

aeturnum 2y ago
This is technically already the situation and you can easily get them to pay up for each violation you prove in court. Good luck!

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> If you really feel you can't operate a business without doing crimes, you shouldn't operate the business. It isn't Facebook doing crimes, they're a company whose customers are doing crimes. > The problem, to me, is that everything you said applies down stream too. You can't be sure the person purchasing the ad is trying to commit a crime either (perhaps they were hacked, perhaps they were dumb, etc). Which is why we have investigators and courts, to sort this out. When the police execute the warrant and find the drugs, the person's claim that they were hacked is not going to hold a lot of water. Whereas if they find no drugs but seize the computer and find malware on it, then they can investigate the malware network and find the actual perpetrators. This is law enforcement's job. To figure out who actually did the crime and charge them with it. Facebook can't do that and shouldn't be expected to. > So you get into this situation where Facebook (and everyone else at that scale) can do some crimes, but not so many that it's a big part of their business. It seems bad. Why is it bad? Why is it even expected to be bad? It's true of every business whatsoever. A major hardware store that sells duct tape will have as customers some number of kidnappers who use it to tape the mouths of their victims. The kidnappers will go to a gas station and buy gas. These companies are thereby profiting in some small way from crime. But so what? Go arrest the kidnappers, the hardware store is irrelevant.

rightbyte 2y ago
> It isn't Facebook doing crimes, they're a company whose customers are doing crimes. Aiding and abetting is a thing.
- voxic11 2y ago
  Aiding and abetting requires intent. If I am a bus driver and a bank robber happens to ride on my bus on his way to rob a bank I am not aiding and abetting because I had no intent or knowledge of the crime. > To convict as a principal of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted the principal(s) in each essential element of the crime https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2474-elements-aiding-and-abetting https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...