Actual murderers get out in the time that Ross served.
The concept of justice must include an element of proportionality, I would argue that Ross's sentence, for a first time non-violent criminal, was over the top. Without proportionality justice becomes arbitrary, based more on luck and your connections to power.
We punish those we can punish: the little guy. Whilst those running governments, corporations and networks that facilitate repression, hatred and genocide go scot free.
We punish people all the time for non-violent, white-collar crime; often very severely. Bernie Madoff got sent to prison for 150 years and died there and, as far as I know, he never solicited a murder for hire.
Madoff is the exception rather than the rule--and even Madoff operated his Ponzi scheme for over 40 years before being prosecuted.
Madoff's arrest and prosecution was actually pretty ineffectual in my opinion. If an amoral person can live as one of the richest men in the world for 40 years in exchange for spending the last 10 years of their life in minimum-security prison, I think a lot of amoral people would take that trade.
Bernie Ebbers and Jeff Skilling both got more than 20 years for Enron. The CEO and co-owner of NCFE got 30 years and 25 years respectively for their role in a securities and wire fraud relating to that business.
> In December 2019, Ebbers was released from Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth, due to declining health, having served 13 years of his 25-year sentence, and he died just over a month later.[1]
...living until the age of 61 as one of the richest men in the world, then spending 13 years in minimum-security prison.
> In 2013, following a further appeal, and earlier accusations that prosecutors had concealed evidence from Skilling's lawyers prior to his trial, the United States Department of Justice reached a deal with Skilling, which resulted in ten years being cut from his sentence, reducing it to 14 years. He was moved to a halfway house in 2018 and released from custody in 2019, after serving 12 years. [2]
...living until the age of 53 as one of the richest men in the world, then spending 12 years in minimum-security prison.
Re: NCFE: Lance K. Poulsen went to jail at 65, and while I wasn't able to find out his current situation, he's about due to get out of jail if the other cases are any indication[3]. Rebecca S. Parrett, 60, fled after her conviction and was arrested at age 62 in Mexico, largely due to fleeing to a country with robust US extradition (why?)[4].
If a Mafia boss never strong armed a merchant, never busted any kneecaps, and never pulled a trigger but simply paid other people to carry out various crimes, should the law give him a short sentence because he was non-violent?
I don't know what the appropriate sentence for Ulbrecht, but I think your claims about proportionality are missing the fact he didn't just direct commit a few crimes, such as trying (unsuccessfully) to hire a hitman, but he facilitated hundreds of thousands of crimes. Maybe you think selling drugs and guns to randos should not be illegal, but that is a separate question of whether or not he broke the laws as written.
As for your last point, I don't disagree that the wealthy/powerful/connected live under a different justice system than everyone else.
Wasn't silk road selling way more than just drugs ? Like, pornography and gun, worldwide. When you facilitate both sex trafficking, organized crime and potentially terrorism you can't exactly be surprised you get hit with everything.
> Carnegie Mellon University's researchers did an analysis of Silk Road gathering data on a daily basis for eight months before it was shut down. Some of their findings include:
> “‘Weed’ (i.e., marijuana) is the most popular item on Silk Road” (p.8)
> “The quantities being sold are generally rather small (e.g., a few grams of marijuana)” (p.12)
> In Table 1, we take a closer look at the top 20 categories per number of item offered. “Weed” (i.e., mari- juana) is the most popular item on Silk Road, followed by “Drugs,” which encompass any sort of narcotics or prescription medicine the seller did not want further classified. Prescription drugs, and “Benzos,” colloquial term for benzodiazepines, which include prescription medicines like Valium and other drugs used for insom- nia and anxiety treatment, are also highly popular. The four most popular categories are all linked to drugs; nine of the top ten, and sixteen out of the top twenty are drug-related. In other words, Silk Road is mostly a drug store, even though it also caters some other products. Finally, among narcotics, even though such a classification is somewhat arbitrary, Silk Road appears to have more inventory in “soft drugs” (e.g., weed, cannabis, hash, seeds) than “hard drugs” (e.g., opiates); this presumably simply reflects market demand.
> Silk Road places relatively few restrictions on the types of goods sellers can offer. From the Silk Road sellers’ guide [5],
“Do not list anything who’s (sic) purpose is to harm or defraud, such as stolen items or info, stolen credit cards, counterfeit currency, personal info, assassinations, and weapons of any kind. Do not list anything related to pedophilia.”
> Conspicuously absent from the list of prohibited items are prescription drugs and narcotics, as well as adult pornography and fake identification documents (e.g., counterfeit driver’s licenses). Weapons and am- munition used to be allowed until March 4, 2012, when they were transferred to a sister site called The Armory [1], which operated with an infrastructure similar to that of Silk Road. Interestingly, the Armory closed in August 2012 reportedly due to a lack of business [6].
No, silk road did not sell weapons. There was legal content like pornography and other media on there, but Ulbricht was an idealist and excluded material with "intent to harm".
Notably, as Ullbricht predicted, the Silk Road was immediately replaced by sites which did not have such ideals, and openly sold weapons and illegal pornography.
plus in North America you don't really need a darknet market to get a gun illegally. US FedGov ain't gonna get to involved in illegal gun sales in Europe.
Interesting and surprising they really had rules, thanks for the clarification. I'm ashamed to say I opened this page and read it wrong the first time by skipping the first sentence.
I once noticed (in the UK) that two people who I read news stories about in the same week got similar sentences. One for breach of copyright, one for sexually assaulting a teenager.
That said, I think Ross did knowingly enable violence?
Anyone else recently tried to search for a location, even using keyword map, and still not be shown a Google Maps link? I would much rather be shown a map, than whatever BS AI generated dogwater summary they are dishing out instead.
If Google mangement can't see the user value of putting their own useful products in search, what hope is there for the rest of the world's useful information?
People are attracted to "I climbed a ladder, and it was safe" stories, which are usually presented without the context on the societal harms of ladder use in aggregate.
However, it needs flatpak runtime. If you already have different flatpak apps, this is not an issue, it is going to be shared with them, but if this is going to be your first-and-only flatpak app, you need to add few hundreds MB.
I recently created a new account on Facebook with the single goal of seeing what was going on in my local community.
Firstly their search /discover was pretty terrible. I am sure that local groups exist, but searching for keywords mostly turned up communities with commercial angles.
Secondly even tho I only joined groups related to a very specific European location, every 3rd post in my feed is now bizzarely a scantily clad teen from Africa. I can dismiss these posts individually, but there is no way to tell Facebook's algorithim that it placed me in the wrong bucket, they provide no way to opt out.
If they really must insert random algorithmic content, Facebook already has all the clues they need to make it relevant, based on my searches and groups that I have joined. Instead their AI tried to play 4D chess with my preferences and outsmarted itself, serving me a horrendous swamp of teenbait slop.
They must've hard-coded something in recently, because I've got a permanent injection of scantily clad tiktok booty into my feed as well, and my account had no changes for years. I think they're just blanket applying it to all men now.
Not much by way of scantily clad anythings on my feed, but I've experienced a sudden glut of anger-bait posts, both there and in other places. Not sure if it is due to election season, or if the Algorithms On High have noticed me trying not to interact with the eternal14s any more and are trying to drag me back off that wagon. Though the theory I currently think most likely is that a number of worthwhile posters have dropped off so the arseholes-to-decent-people ratio has had yet another boost and me being shown more crap is a consequence of that.
I haven't dug into it, cause I don't really care.. but I imagine that fb/meta tracks more than clicks. If I were them, I'd have js on the page that tracks your scrolling, and pays attention to the posts you 'hover' over for longer.
I bet that's just one of the ways they track behavior on their platform. So if you slow down to check out the ladies, I bet more show up, even if you don't click.
Yes, absolutely, I think most people don't click on those anymore, they just let it autoplay and pretend in their minds that they were not really watching it, just scrolling :D.
My friends, now we're all a bit older, don't post as frequently as they once did. I'm also a member of a couple of hyper-local groups which don't necessarily get posts every day, and I have no interest in anything else. I'm fine with this, if nobody's posted for a while then I'll see that and move on.
Facebook is not fine with this. Apparently I must be interested in archaeology, or sexist jokes, or various displays of flesh, or cars, or sports, or following someone that's making misogynist 'jokes' or ancient aliens conspiracies or a not-very-funny comic or more flesh or... I just must be interested in something, surely? It's just a matter of time before they wave the right thing under my nose and I bite and increase my engagement?
Is that the thinking? Because now 90%+ of my feed is unwanted shite and it's hard to find the few things I do go there for. And this is driving people like me and my friends away further, leading to a downward spiral of less content for those that remain, more 'suggestions' etc.
It's also baffling - multiple bullshit 'archaeology' groups will post the same picture (often of something not related to archaeology at all) on the same day, so they're clearly run by the same entity, spinning up millions of crappy 'groups' with low-quality content. Why do they exist? Who is benefitting from this?
AI can only speed up this enshittification, but the platform is already drowning in it.
Social feeds have been in a death spiral for a while, most platforms curate for likes/ engagement/ followers, which in turn deters genuine content both from a sharing and visibility POV.
Spurious recommendation algos currently have enough engagement, bots et al, that they'll keep rattling away... for now.
Exactly. There is so much trash in my feed it has become a tedious chore to scroll through for any real content. Very little signal, not worth the noise.
Not to mention embarrassing that a viewer of my feed would think that I am some sort of knuckle-dragging horndog.
Perhaps the internet is bifurcating into lowbrow and highbrow, and facebook has chosen a side.
Your experience sounds similar to mine with YouTube, especially if I try to watch videos without logging into an account.
Thus I have more than one account to use these as topical pre-filters. And when you loose your cookies, YouTube wants a phone number to "verify" that it's "me". Luckily, as a European living near enough to French borders, I can purchase temporary SIM cards in France and "verify" things during holiday trips and don't need to use my main phone account.
