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.
> 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.
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
We are talking about a bank robber with the cartoon outfit with big bags with dollar signs on them boarding the bus to and from the bank repeatedly. But he pays for the ticket so I guess it is fine in this proto-dystopian "late stage capitalism".
> We are talking about a bank robber with the cartoon outfit with big bags with dollar signs on them boarding the bus to and from the bank repeatedly.
Okay, let's proceed with your cartoon example.
The bank robber goes to the ticket machine, puts in money, gets a subway ticket, swipes the ticket through the turnstile and rides the subway. If the subway operator posted guards at all the entrances to the subway they could see the guy, but they don't, because that would be crazy expensive when they're not the police and their concern is just to make sure people pay the fare, and they can do that by installing automated floor-to-ceiling turnstiles that block entry to the subway unless you pay the fare.
Why is it the subway operator's obligation to investigate this crime, instead of the police? The subway operator could investigate it, the crime is happening in public view, but so could anyone else. Moreover, we don't want random common carriers to be denying service to innocent people based on scant evidence just for CYA purposes. We want penalties to be handed out in court once the prosecution has met their burden of proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 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.