4 ms·

Let's clear up a very often perpetuated and very disingenuous misconception. Silk Road did NOT sell a damn thing. Silk Road (the website and very much the same

by Evolved 12y ago

Let's clear up a very often perpetuated and very disingenuous misconception. Silk Road did NOT sell a damn thing. Silk Road (the website and very much the same as the actual location) was a conduit for sellers to do their business. SR merely provided a safe environment and safe alternative for people who are going to get their drugs one way or another. Arguably a much safer alternative as well since the purity and accuracy of content could be better verified than what you get off the street. Therefore, Ulbricht is no more a drug trafficker than John Donahoe (CEO of eBay) sells iphone screen protectors and decorative beads for art projects.

forrestthewoods 12y ago
I'm going to strongly disagree with your last point. How many sellers were on Silk Road? How many of them sold drugs? Take this percentage and compare it to the number of eBay auctions that are for iphone screen protectors or dedocrate beads. These numbers will differ by more than a few orders of magnitude. It's not reasonable to compare them. If you know your service is being used for drug trafficking to a significant degree and you don't try to stop it then yes, you do hold some responsibility and can be held accountable. Morally, ethically, and legally.
- crazypyro 12y ago
  Legal problems are obvious, so I'll focus on the ethical/moral side. I think it is wrong to equate drug trafficking, in any sense, to a moral or ethical argument. Those questions do not yet have concrete, society-accepted answers, so by imposing the ethical and moral objects on drugs, we are in danger of simply following the status quo without question, I think. There are also cases where the most moral or ethical thing to do would be allow a patient to use a state-controlled/restricted drug, if it would save their lives. If we were to follow this argument to its conclusion, there may be a moral or ethical argument that it would be wrong for him to attempt to shutdown the ability of a patient to acquire life-improving drugs. tl;dr: Equating legal wrong to moral/ethical wrong is not always the right way.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    My intent was for all three to be considered separately. I didn't specify whether it was immoral/moral, ethical/unethical, or legal/illegal. However my real point is that the Silk Road creator and maintainer is responsible and accountable along all three axes. If it is moral, ethical, and legal then that's great! If it's moral, ethical, but illegal then that kinda sucks but that's the risk you take. Morals and ethics are an endless debate which is beside the point here. My opinion is that the initial comparison vs eBay is unreasonble and that the creator is responsible in all three ways.
    - doctorver 12y ago
      Another analogy is renting space in your strip mall to a doctor who prescribes pain killers to their patients. The doctors behaviors may or may not be legal (depending on the specifics of how he metes out his narcotics) but the strip mall owner shouldn't be held liable just because some of his clients are possibly selling narcotics in violation of the law.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    While I agree that legality and morality are not equivalent (in practice or theory), strictly the parent comment didn't assert that they were. You can have moral responsibility for an act without appreciable moral weight, it just doesn't matter much that you do.
- Evolved 12y ago
  The great thing is that none of what you said applies to a drug trafficking charge because DPR and SR didn't engage in drug trafficking. The environment was created as a marketplace for illicit drug sales but SR didn't produce/manufacture/distribute/store/sell any drugs. My comparison to eBay is valid because just like ebay, there are sellers that sell in the market. EBay doesn't sell product. People might say "I bought it off eBay" but they aren't actually buying product FROM eBay. This differs from Amazon where the shipments are labeled (fulfillment by Amazon). I also doubt he could be charge under the RICO statute except the prosecution may be able to pull that one off if they can somehow twist the murder charges to resemble something covered under RICO.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    Then we shall have to agree to disagree. I'm comfortable with that.
paxcoder 12y ago
If the CEO of eBay facilitated sales of contraband and murder via his platform, he too would be held responsible.
thesteamboat 12y ago
I think most people would have no problem saying something like "eBay sells iphone screen protectors", even though that is not (techncally) correct.
- undersuit 12y ago
  But if the US Government decided to tax sales of iphone screen protectors Ebay would not be responsible for direct payment of the tax. Ebay could facilitate the collection of the tax, but in the end it is up to the seller to to take responsibility.
novaleaf 12y ago
Except, you know, his sign out in front saying "This is the place for selling your illicit wares"
- undersuit 12y ago
  Not DPR wares, your wares.

by Evolved 12y ago

forrestthewoods 12y ago

I'm going to strongly disagree with your last point. How many sellers were on Silk Road? How many of them sold drugs? Take this percentage and compare it to the number of eBay auctions that are for iphone screen protectors or dedocrate beads. These numbers will differ by more than a few orders of magnitude. It's not reasonable to compare them. If you know your service is being used for drug trafficking to a significant degree and you don't try to stop it then yes, you do hold some responsibility and can be held accountable. Morally, ethically, and legally.

crazypyro 12y ago
Legal problems are obvious, so I'll focus on the ethical/moral side. I think it is wrong to equate drug trafficking, in any sense, to a moral or ethical argument. Those questions do not yet have concrete, society-accepted answers, so by imposing the ethical and moral objects on drugs, we are in danger of simply following the status quo without question, I think. There are also cases where the most moral or ethical thing to do would be allow a patient to use a state-controlled/restricted drug, if it would save their lives. If we were to follow this argument to its conclusion, there may be a moral or ethical argument that it would be wrong for him to attempt to shutdown the ability of a patient to acquire life-improving drugs. tl;dr: Equating legal wrong to moral/ethical wrong is not always the right way.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  My intent was for all three to be considered separately. I didn't specify whether it was immoral/moral, ethical/unethical, or legal/illegal. However my real point is that the Silk Road creator and maintainer is responsible and accountable along all three axes. If it is moral, ethical, and legal then that's great! If it's moral, ethical, but illegal then that kinda sucks but that's the risk you take. Morals and ethics are an endless debate which is beside the point here. My opinion is that the initial comparison vs eBay is unreasonble and that the creator is responsible in all three ways.
  - doctorver 12y ago
    Another analogy is renting space in your strip mall to a doctor who prescribes pain killers to their patients. The doctors behaviors may or may not be legal (depending on the specifics of how he metes out his narcotics) but the strip mall owner shouldn't be held liable just because some of his clients are possibly selling narcotics in violation of the law.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  While I agree that legality and morality are not equivalent (in practice or theory), strictly the parent comment didn't assert that they were. You can have moral responsibility for an act without appreciable moral weight, it just doesn't matter much that you do.
Evolved 12y ago
The great thing is that none of what you said applies to a drug trafficking charge because DPR and SR didn't engage in drug trafficking. The environment was created as a marketplace for illicit drug sales but SR didn't produce/manufacture/distribute/store/sell any drugs. My comparison to eBay is valid because just like ebay, there are sellers that sell in the market. EBay doesn't sell product. People might say "I bought it off eBay" but they aren't actually buying product FROM eBay. This differs from Amazon where the shipments are labeled (fulfillment by Amazon). I also doubt he could be charge under the RICO statute except the prosecution may be able to pull that one off if they can somehow twist the murder charges to resemble something covered under RICO.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  Then we shall have to agree to disagree. I'm comfortable with that.

paxcoder 12y ago

If the CEO of eBay facilitated sales of contraband and murder via his platform, he too would be held responsible.

thesteamboat 12y ago

I think most people would have no problem saying something like "eBay sells iphone screen protectors", even though that is not (techncally) correct.

undersuit 12y ago
But if the US Government decided to tax sales of iphone screen protectors Ebay would not be responsible for direct payment of the tax. Ebay could facilitate the collection of the tax, but in the end it is up to the seller to to take responsibility.

novaleaf 12y ago

Except, you know, his sign out in front saying "This is the place for selling your illicit wares"

undersuit 12y ago
Not DPR wares, your wares.