zlacker

So by your logic, a drug kingpin who doesn't actually handle the drug-selling transaction should not be liable for anything, even though the money rolls up to them?

Ross directly profited from the sale of those drugs. So, yes, he was "selling the drugs".

>>sbarre+(OP)
Google and Meta also profit from selling ads to the people who use it to trade drugs. All I'm saying is there's a rough equivalence. Perhaps the Silk Road platform should be banned but he was not a drug dealer himself. Creating a communications platform is not the same thing as being a drug dealer.

>>xyzzy9+z
He created/operated a platform with the primary purpose of facilitating the sale of drugs. He profited from those transactions. That makes him a drug dealer.

Comparing Meta and Google to Silk Road is a bad faith argument. You might as well compare Silk Road to the phone network at that point.

>>sbarre+12
There were many other items and services sold on Silk Road, it wasn’t just drugs.

>>xyzzy9+67
According to wikipedia [1], 70% of the products sold on silk road were drugs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace). wikipedia uses as reference https://web.archive.org/web/20160407165324/http://gawker.com... and https://web.archive.org/web/20131012012106/http://www.thegua...

plus, at least ebay, amazon, big tech comply or at least sometimes comply with the law banning some products which can't be sold or advertised