I’m confused as Trump said he wanted to be tough on crime and drugs and “kill drug dealers”, but he just pardoned one of the worlds largest drug dealers.

He was never a drug dealer, he provided a platform that was used to sell drugs. The pardon was a surprise, however his sentence was unfairly strict and he was clearly made an example out of that hasn't happened to any other platform provider.

Just as an example, there have been investigations in to the use of Snapchat as a method for drug dealers and gangs of drug dealers to access kids to sell them drugs However there has been absolutely zero discussion in the public domain even about shutting it down or requiring new laws to stop this, let alone considering charging the owners.

Hmm, but you have to be squinting pretty hard to see an equivalence between Snapchat and silk road

Even if you compare like for like, SR Vs SR2, the responses, charges, and sentences still aren't the same.

There is a huge difference between a communication platform that some users abuse for illegal purposes, and a platform whose primary purpose is a marketplace for illegal goods.

Why would anyone need an anonymous poor UX marketplace for anything other than illegal goods?

I mean I would agree regarding the user base, but it was originally built as a utopian concept for a free trade of goods, akin to the original world of warcraft marketplace.

It seems a big strectch, 99%+ revenue was from illegal goods, and it wasn’t like it was some decentralized blockchain marketplace.

The value created was reducing “legislative risk” for buyers and sellers of illegal goods.

Also, people just run ads on Facebook for drugs, counterfeit money, stolen debit cards.. it’s wild.

Are you really confused? Did you believe him? He commits many crimes himself and so do his associates.

I suppose it could be made consistent if we posit the existence of another hidden rule. For example, the skin-color or political-connectedness of the accused.

I think you need much more than "feels" to make claims like that, especially as they are directly contrary to HN guidelines, but also because making baseless claims, especially about other commenters, is a meaningless, inflammatory response.

So far you don't know what you are talking about and are making things up. If you do know what you're talking about and aren't making it up, please share your evidence and reasoning.

I distinctly remember listening to recordings of him hiring a hitman. It's been a long time and my memory is certainly prone to error, but that sort of thing does stick with you. I especially remember the irony because he also preached about non-violence at some point, obviously until someone's continued existence became inconvenient for him.

I don't agree with that and I don't understand why those charges were not taken to court (I don't believe it was purely because he already had 2 life sentences as when the appeals were going to the supreme court and there was a risk of him winning, it surely made sense to secure him if you had the evidence to proceed with another case). Whether that was true or not though, someone can only be sentenced and punished on what one was convicted of. Anything else is not based in justice or law.

I don't really believe that the US is a country ruled by law any more, but in some idealized land of the law you are probably correct. But you won't convince me that OJ Simpson walking on a double homicide he clearly committed is justice. For Ulbricht, it actually feels like things more or less balanced out, but he did try to have someone killed, and I don't think that's a nice thing to do.

Did the judge conclude, as part of sentencing, that hiring a hit (or two?) was likely?

What reasoning did the judge give for the sentencing? They might involve similar websites but the crimes can be much different. Two people can run the same drug cartel at different times, but that doesn't mean their crimes are the same.

I think one can say the sentences were too severe and still think some sentence was fine.

I would agree with this. He deserved punishment as he did break the law.

Your link says that was a court in England. England generally has different sentencing standards than the US.

Valid point, however even those involved that were comvicted in the US such as Brian Farrell only received single digit sentences.