But the point is that this assumes you're able to tell the difference between the two cases- intent is often a really hard thing to prove. And often discussions about whether Facebook acted in good faith when it did certain things neglect the fact that they made a big mess everywhere, that needs sorting out regardless of their intent.
It is and yet the legal system is busy with these sorts of proves all the time. e.g. if you have a professional insurance and caused some damage by mistake - that's covered, if you cause damage deliberately - it's not.
I think this is basic good that regulations- thoughtful ones- serv. Because if Facebook makes money by being evil, then their competitors will be pressured to do the same in order to stay in business. But by leveling the playing field you can help prevent these monopolies from getting so big and powerful.
We can't rely on businesses to act "morally." That ship has sailed. We have to compel them to behave, not by social shaming but by making non-compliance painful and repeated non-compliance an existential threat.
That's like saying there's not a difference in involuntary manslaughter and murder.
There is. Intent is very important. That's WHY so many people focus on the intention.
The choice not to dedicate those resources up front was an intentional one.
If a company makes an "innocent" unintentional mistake, it can be attributed in part to their choosing not to put resources towards detecting and avoiding that kind of error
It's hardly an accident at that point anymore, but intentionally or (intentionally) carelessly done. That's where we are with Facebook I think.
There is a difference between empowerment ("Joe Public can't do much to change society") versus investing (literally putting money into local businesses, demanding better behavior, etc).
I have met a lot of my American peers who believe their individual liberty absolves them of responsibility to the society they live in, which is entirely opposite: their personal liberty is granted precisely because of the society they live in.
I disagree that it's likewise for big companies. Corporations like that don't really have intentions; every intention is fundamentally about profit. Profit is in fact both its intention as well as its reward/punishment.
It's really the only way to properly "communicate" with an entity like that. A corporation is not a human being. And just like it's not useful to try to reason with (or attribute human-like intention to) a cat, it's basically futile to do so with a corporation.
Any time that human-like reasoning seems to apply with a corporation, it really only happened because the reasoning happens to align with its profit intentions.
Edit: this is less true for smaller companies, but for a multinational it's pretty much a given.
Also, there's something in the way that large companies are structured, that actual accountability (like you'd find with humans or small groups) seems to disappear and slip between the gaps of hierarchy. Lacking accountability, attributing intent becomes guesswork.
Likewise for big companies. If a company is acting badly, you need to figure out if it was intentional. In both cases you seek damages, but your approach to making sure it never happens again will be very different.