> I guess I don't see the distinction you are trying to make.
I already told you: "I'm hesitant to call anything evil just for being caught in the cross-hairs of the drug laws in the US." If you think that violating the drugs laws (or helping someone to do so) in the US is evil, then we have a fundamental disagreement.
From my reading of the article, the sting wasn't to find out if Google was knowingly helping scams---just that they were knowingly helping someone sell illegal drugs.
The problem is not that the drugs were illegal. The problem was that they were fake. That is evil. Furthermore, scamming people is evil as well, since it involves taking advantage of them.
Yes, it was. The entire article is about setting up a sting to catch Google helping people sell illicit drugs.
> The problem was that they were fake.
I'm running out of ways to explain this to you: the sting showed no evidence that Google knew that the drugs were fake---only that they knew that they were trying to sell illegal drugs.
There are two competing ideas going on here:
1) Google knowingly facilitated the sale of illegal drugs.
2) Google knowingly facilitated scammers.
From what I could tell, the article demonstrated (1) but not (2). I don't think (1) is evil. I do think (2) is evil. So if you disagree with my interpretation of the article, at least you can be satisfied that we agree on something.
I already told you: "I'm hesitant to call anything evil just for being caught in the cross-hairs of the drug laws in the US." If you think that violating the drugs laws (or helping someone to do so) in the US is evil, then we have a fundamental disagreement.
From my reading of the article, the sting wasn't to find out if Google was knowingly helping scams---just that they were knowingly helping someone sell illegal drugs.