First, I should note that I am not a lawyer, and make no attempt herein to fully delineate legal issues. Nothing I say should be taken as legal advice, because I am utterly incompetent to give it. As a civilian, however, certain facts are painfully obvious, and my remarks should be taken in that light: a layman's opinion of apparent facts and their potential consequences, accompanied by friendly advice that is intended to enable good people to avoid harm. This is not a threat to take legal action myself, and merely iterates my grasp of such as I have observed. Finally, this is not about my personal opinions of the people I will mention, neither about my feelings. This is about risk, harm, and consequences.
I find it expository to consider how this automated spam pictured above and the botnet associated with it 1) makes false and defamatory claims about it's victims in print on a public platform, 2) is advertising @berniesanders, the apparent 'home' account of the user controlling the botnet that includes @abusereports, 3) has repeatedly and often blatantly threatened and extorted not only the victims of it's malicious acts, but anyone that interacts with them, 4) has committed criminal libel, sexual harassment, and threatened violence, either manually or via script, on chain, 5) is committed by a consensus witness, @nextgencrypto, that supports, and is supported as a witness by, other consensus witnesses, substantial stakeholders, and other Steem users, who are thereby endorsing the acts thereof, and contributing financial support for the same, inculcating liability, 6) is often self voted by the botnet of which it is part, taking rewards claimed to be intended for authors creating content (financial manipulation and fraud), and 7) does so without apparent opposition by institutions claiming to oppose all these harmful impacts on Steem (and receiving financial support to do so, also fraud), or bearing responsibility for reasonably effecting Steem and fiduciary prudence. These facts strongly suggest conspiracy and fraud, as well as establish liability of responsible parties for neglecting to effectively prevent, mitigate, and end such abuse and criminal acts facilitated by their property, or even actively conspiring to commit them.
@spaminator, @steemflagrewards, @steemcleaners, and similar institutions and efforts should be combating this spam and the botnet that executes it, per their missions and public statements. They don't. Stinc itself has completely censored the one party I am aware of that actively opposed it (after being defrauded of funds by @themarkymak), the botnet of @fulltimegeek, whose accounts are the primary target of the irredeemables Github. Their failures to oppose the @berniesanders botnet, and their actions to support and strengthen it, imply a relationship of some kind with that botnet, presumably financial, that is suggestive of an unlawful conspiracy to defraud not only the specific victims, but the entire class of Steem users. Indeed, the active censorship of @fulltimegeek, without similar action against the @berniesanders botnet despite it's ongoing crimes and spam, can be seen as deliberately and intentionally aiding and abetting the perpetrator of the criminal and tortuous defamatory, abusive, and fraudulent actions undertaken by that party using that botnet in the commission of those acts.
This botnet has harmed the society underlying Steem more than any other that is revealed by steemd records, by abusing flags for personal opinions and financial gain, neither of which are intended per the statements of Stinc in it's papers, but which Stinc has never taken action to end, limit, or mitigate.
That this botnet is allowed to so so without effective opposition is comparable to myriad corruptions of other institutions off chain. As is evident wherever such corruption is found, society is shown to be severely harmed. Steem has suffered numerous losses of users, and of the content they created that marketed Steem. The abusive and dramatic nature of those events has greatly discouraged adoption and retention of Steem users, causing financial harm by reducing that market, as well as harming the victims personally, and as a direct consequence. Further, the specific kinds of acts and covert financial collusion above mentioned have historically been the subject of prosecutions by relevant finsec and criminal authorities such as the SEC and FBI, as well as civil legal action to redress torts, including as class actions. It is notable that additional agencies, such as the IRS, are often involved subsequent to such enforcement being undertaken.
The decrease in the price of Steem, market cap, and user retention, grossly underperforming the market, has been strongly driven by this botnet, and the apparent corruption of anti spam, Steem marketing, and other institutions, such as @steemit, that claim to mitigate rewards pool rape or implement Steem and social media, may exacerbate and increase that harm. If collusion or negligence is established, the criminal and financial liability may well incur burdens far in excess of the benefits conspirators have enjoyed.
Failure to act to prevent and limit the harm this botnet does Steem renders the rhetoric of spam fighting organizations, Stinc itself, and proponents of onboarding users and marketing Steem, hollow and duplicitous. No more egregious example of botnet profiteering, corruption, and censorship on Steem is known to me. Criminal and tortuous liability inures to not only the owner of the botnet, but individuals, corporations, and institutions that have conspired to ignore, conceal, and assist that perpetrator in the illegal and harmful conduct he has undertaken, as well as parties responsible to effect and maintain Steem, it's community, and financial prudence demonstrably neglecting to mitigate these obviously and widely known harmful actions, at best.
That this botnet continues to abuse users without opposition from @spaminator, @steemflagrewards, and @steemcleaners supports indictment of those organizations, and those failures to act to counter it's malicious impact imply corrupt influence and covert support of the very harm they claim to oppose, which constitutes fraud. Conspiring witnesses, corporations, institutions, and persons bear criminal and tortuous liability. @ned and @dan, despite their present (apparent) lack of activity on Steem, are also apparently liable, if only for negligence rather than active participation in conspiracy. @dan did once flag @berniesanders with great prejudice. Perhaps that act mitigates any other liability he may bear.
I can only address what I have observed, and compare it to other events I have observed, hopefully objectively. If I am unaware of substantive action to counter the malignant influence of @berniesanders and his botnet during my tenure here on Steem, particularly by any parties I have mentioned, it would be good of you to let me know. Again, I follow some of these groups or people in them. I am not venting my spleen. This isn't personal. I am considering legal liability as a result of the actions discussed.
Despite pseudonymity, state actors are able to identify involved persons trivially and with facility. In the event they undertake to, complex botnets and socks will be unraveled and the owners identified. I am unaware presently of any attention to the criminal charges that apply to conspirators and negligent parties by relevant agencies, but am aware of claims by injured parties of intent to pursue legal action for torts. I also recall claims that the IRS has been involved in prior actions to limit and sanction profiteering on Steem. Should legal actions proceed, we should expect complaints to be filed with relevant agencies alleging all these - and probably many more - criminal acts. It should be of paramount importance not only to the community of users, but to substantial stakeholders, corporate executives, and institutions claiming or otherwise responsible to oppose criminal, tortuous, and other abuse on Steem, to prevent further law enforcement, legal, and community attention from being drawn to these issues.
I strongly urge aforementioned parties (and many I did not mention) to limit their liability criminally and at law otherwise, as well as personally, by taking all necessary and advisable action to prevent further crimes and financial harm from being committed by this botnet and associated conspirators, and further, by seeking to redress grievances and make those harmed as whole as possible. Were I in any of those positions, I'd consult counsel.
Failure to do so is not only foolish in the extreme, it is financially counterproductive, and potentially existential to Steem, the community, and even individuals that may be at risk of bodily harm due to their ability to provide evidence, or who may seek legal sanctions, against criminals and conspirators in fraud that are at risk of financial or other loss as a result of legal action(s), particularly subsequent to threats of violence that have been committed. It should be noted that the blockchain and other apps, sites, and programs are evidentiary in these matters, and any party that hereafter deletes such evidence may incur additional liability for obstruction of justice in any legal actions that eventually ensue.
Do you want to be prosecuted for fraud and criminal conspiracy? Because this is how you get prosecuted by the SEC and FBI for fraud and criminal conspiracy. Though the inevitable legal actions could conceivably fail to secure convictions, or even financial sanctions (despite voluminous evidence), valuable time and treasure will be expended defending against them. At best, such events will reduce the market further, and degrade the execution of fiduciary prudence @steemit is responsible for. Take effective action, or suffer the consequences of neglecting to do so as they continue to mount.
Every institution supporting Steem and it's users should be taking action to defend them from these harms, and mitigate such impacts from it they suffer. @freezepeach is a good example of how that can be done. More can be done, and not just to stave off litigation. It's the right thing to do, and may improve Steem adoption, user retention, grow the market for Steem, increase the price, and benefit the organizations and people of Steem social media in myriad ways.
The present situation necessitates action, and failure to act will constitute neglect, at best. Withdrawal of support for @nextgencrypto's witness should be the first step for those that have voted for it, to eliminate liability and conspiracy charges that will almost certainly result from predictable legal action forthcoming due to criminal acts committed by the owner of that account and botnet. I personally recommend supporting only witnesses that do not themselves support @nextgencrypto or his co-conspirators, avoiding tertiary liability thereby.
Otherwise, opposing spam and self voting by this botnet is now greatly facilitated by the downvote pool, and will encourage it's owner to cease harmful acts, or even to seek to make amends, if they are capable of it. Perhaps legal action may be avoided altogether if enough jimmies are unrustled, almonds deactivated, and ruffled feathers smoothed.
Nothing personal Justin. You're just bad for business. My advice to you is to leave for some third word shithole, surgically alter your appearance, change your name, and never speak of this again. Maybe in this life you can avoid the consequences of your actions.
Personally, I wouldn't. I intend to fully suffer the consequences of my bad judgment in this world, that I might be free of them in that to come. You don't seem the type, however.
If you flee, you might get away with your criminal proceeds. If you continue your criminal, fraudulent, and harmful actions, it is very unlikely that you will avoid legal sanction(s), IMHO.
Folks, let's end criminal abuse and fraud on Steem. It's the right thing to do morally, ethically, legally, and financially. For those that have conspired, colluded, and helped otherwise to cause this harm, it is possible that doing the right thing now can prevent legal liability from ensuing. Failing to do so is just asking for trouble. These accusations and claims can be made, whether you agree they are criminal, harmful, and wrong, or not. Do you want to defend against them in court?
Is this really the hill we want Steem to die on?
