There are levels to this though.

You wouldn't hold a landlord accountable if it was a surprise that a crime took place, but if they were aware that some of their tenants were committing crimes and just "choosing not to ask about it," they could reasonably be called "accountable."

Telcos are regularly asked to give up information regarding crimes committed by their customers, see the Patriot Act for details - in some sense, we as a country have decided to hold them accountable for this (though, not spam).

Meta have been involved in a whole list of litigation that is at minimum adjacent to stalking/harassment, if not directly involving those things. I would need to look up to be more specific, though.

You moved the goalposts to make your arguments.

You say landlords should only have accountability for the crimes of their tenants if they chose to do nothing to prevent their property from being used for crime.

Google doesn't just ignore bad advertisers, they prevent the vast majority of malicious ads and report the worst offenders to law enforcement. Google is already doing far more than what you say immunizes landlords.

You say telcos are in the clear because they give info to law enforcement on demand.

Google also does this, so according to your goalposts, Google is also in the clear.

You say Meta is in the clear because they have been sued for crimes their platform enabled.

Google has also been sued and paid billions in damages.

The standard I'm asking you to generalize is the one I replied to: "hold Google directly accountable for every malicious ad they allow through their network".

If this standard can't generalize to landlords, telcos, Meta and everyone else who has a platform that bad actors abuse, then it's a bogus standard.