The problem is, the opposite approach is...

"We're scot free, because we told *wink* people to not sell us sensitive data. We get the benefit from it, and we make it really easy for people to sign up and get paid to give us this data that we 'don't want.'"

Please don't sell me cocaine *snifffffffff*

> The fault should still lie with the entity that passed on the sensitive data.

Some benefits to making it be both:

* Centralize enforcement with more knowledgable entities

* Enforce at a level where the misdeeds can actually be identified and have scale, rather than death from a million cuts

* Prevent the central entity from using deniable proxies and cut-throughs to do bad things

This whole notion that we want so much scale, and that scale is an excuse for not paying attention to what you're doing or exercising due diligence, is repugnant. It pushes some cost down but also causes a lot of social harm. If anything, we should expect more ownership and responsibility from those with concentrated power, because they have more ability to cause widescale harm.

>"We're scot free, because we told wink people to not sell us sensitive data. We get the benefit from it, and we make it really easy for people to sign up and get paid to give us this data that we 'don't want.'"

>Please don't sell me cocaine snifffffffff

Maybe there's something in discovery that substantiates this, but so far as I can tell there's no "wink" happening, officially or unofficially. A better analogy would be charging amazon with drug distributing because some enterprising drug dealer decided to use FBA to ship drugs, but amazon was unaware.