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?
Given the behavior, the question is, why is he a protected species ?
Why does @nextgencrypto receive such support from other witnesses ?? Perhaps we should be putting pressure on them for this to end ?
To see @justineh run to his defense and just blame the victims is just baffling. I was particularly disgusted with his treatment of @lyndsaybowes. What was her supposed crime ??
Is there anyone out there can actually explain how this bullying petty childish character, who frankly adds nothing to the platform, is not only not opposed but instead downplayed, supported and defended ?
Serious, what am I missing here ?!
Every time I think of plowing some money into this platform, I just look this corruption, the frustration anger and turmoil it creates, and think... Nahhh.
I think there is an answer to all your questions, and it's profiteering. There are two different routes to ROI: sucking the money out of a business, or profiteering, and building a business up until the stock is worth more than it was when you bought it, or investing.
The two are diametrically opposed philosophically, morally, and really, as in bricks and mortar reality. We observe that Steem is built on profiteering. The rhetoric of profiteers is never forthright, stating they intend to destroy the goose that lays the golden egg because they can just seize the broken shells and move on and profit, but ever seeks to get people to invest. What people invest they take.
Until posts are no longer able to be manipulated to create unlimited rewards, profiteers will be able to manipulate the financial mechanisms and extract unlimited rewards from the pool using posts as a vector. I have proposed implementation of the Huey Long algorithm, that will limit the payout on posts to no less than 3% of median payout, and no more than 300%, which is three orders of magnitude, but too little to enable profiteering via financial manipulation using stake as a weapon.
No one wants to limit payouts, because everyone dreams of whale votes and sudden riches who isn't a whale using such votes to suck the vast majority of the rewards pool into their wallet. This is as short sighted as gamblers betting their last dime. Les Miserables were Napolean's soldiers and prisoners of war that gambled away their clothes in English prisons, so this is not a new psychological phenomenon.
Steem is designed for maximum ROI for ninjaminers, not for creating a society that burgeons over time, despite the mechanism underlying Steem enabling that. However, as Steem value falls, and the market collapses due to the financial benefits inuring only to a few whales, eventually those whales need to move on and invest in new vehicles for profit.
At that time, a HF that implements something like the Huey Long algorithm can transform Steem from a vehicle for profiteering into a vehicle for investors, swapping parasitization of production for long term growth and capital gains.
I await the departure of the whales, so that the new paradigm of government Steem enables can be invested in, grow, and flourish without vampires sucking it's life's blood into their yawning maws. That day approaches, and the lower the price of Steem, the sooner it comes.
Bernie is one of the original ninjaminers. He invented the bidbot with @randowhale. He's not dumb, he's just consumed with avarice, and his poor impulse control renders him incapable of investment (as far as I can tell, anyway). When he sees an opportunity off chain that enables him to swap his stake, or the fiat he's sold stake for, for another target he can mine for ROI, he'll be gone. The problem is doing so will crash the price of Steem because he has so much of it, and the community will be strongly motivated to seek redress for the many torts he's committed. Then the blockchain will be evidence that will cost him money, and lots of it.
He wants it deleted, and then he can move on, he thinks. It won't be. I am pretty sure some folks have mirrors of the chain that keep them off chain and private, and killing Steem won't set him free from the evidence of his criminal acts.
Also, he's just the face of a community of profiteers, not the only one. Looking at steemd, you can see the relationships between he and other witnesses, substantial stakeholders, and bidbot owners like @markymark. He is the visible face of predation, but they all work together to consume the value of the content creators provide. This is why he's not crushed by the collective weight of the other profiteers, and why @dan flagging him to -16 rep was significant.
I expected the downvote pool to be used by him to make Steem social media a void wasteland, crashing the price so the whales could move on to greener pastures. While that hasn't yet happened, it's early days.
We shall see what comes, when it comes. Either way I am not focused on my stake, but on the underlying mechanism of Steem that enables voluntarist government.
Thanks!
I agree with many of your points, and often learn from you as well. This isn't one of those times.
I could be wrong, but it seems there are separate issues that are getting blurred. I know people are tired of hearing this, but Steemit (the main faucet for Steem) is not Steem. It is an interface that happens to be privately owned by those involved in the creation of the chain. I'm not sure of their, or any witnesses, liability in any legal sense to spend their energy and holdings to fight off moves by others of large stake that are harsh and rude.
For many chains, there is only one way to profit primarily. You buy and either sell quick on pumps or hodl and hope for long term growth due to a growth in adoption.
This chain has the added feature of a growing stake to offset loss from inflation coupled with a faucet that is powered by those with stake. That feature in no way negates the normal method most chains offer as a possibility for returns (pump or hodl).
It is your right (as it is all stakeholders rights) to express your thoughts and seek to sway action one way or another, but that is where that right ends. I'm not sure where you are seeing a legal liability when the very nature of a stake based system allows/insists for this dynamic.
This is just a surface look. Looking deeper, they have no real ability to take any action against most people. If a person was determined and had their account(s) banned, nothing would stop them from pulling their stake to exchanges and bringing it back into new accounts. How much energy would one, in your estimation, be legally obligated to expending to play whack a mole?
None of this is an endorsement of actions that have hit several I hold in high esteem hard. It is an honest look and assessment at what is. I have pointed out before, there is nothing stopping those who have had enough from starting their own chain/forking this one and running it the way they see fit. But even then, not sure how one would curb the stake issue. Stake/might makes right. That's the essence of the stake based system.
It seems to me that if it reaches a point where it causes so much grief, the common sense thing to do would be leave, and/or start your own chain.
One can either designate it to being like other chains whose investment potential is through pump/hodl, and perhaps keep what one has staked even to grow from the pool payouts to offset inflation.
Or, sell it all and invest in something else (or blow it all, whatever floats the boat).
Well stated.
I love reading censored posts!
Censored posts have struck the target, so I always read all of them I find. They invevitably reveal the soft white underbelly of the censors.
I note the mass flagging of the botnet under discussion seemed to end immediately following this post. It may not have generated massive rewards, but it achieved it's goal of ending the terrible impact on user retention that botnet has had.
Thanks!
Congratulations @valued-customer! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
I agree.
This is so true
Posted using Partiko Android
Word
You're adorable.
The automated flagging has already stopped, thanks to some constant nagging from one of my favorite Steemians. Don't be so dense, it's time for NEW and IMPROVED Bernies!
Great! Glad to hear you are becoming the change you want to see in society. In that vein, have you undertaken making amends to parties that claim to have suffered harm due to statements and actions you committed?
That would indeed help to insulate Steem from consequences of those acts, and reduce risk to our HODLings.
Edit: Welp, you prove to lie yet again in this comment, as no sooner had I replied than you flagged the OP with multiple socks. O, woe is me! My stake has been prevented from marginally increasing as a result of your flags! What ever shall I do?
Why do you bother? Did you miss the theft of my liquid stake and fail to note my lack of concern? I don't care about my rewards. You just diminish your VP without censoring effect by flagging me. Had you arguments of relevance and note disputing OP, making them would have actual effect, as were I to agree with them, I would say so, and be grateful to be shown the error of my statements.
Flagging without such arguments but reveals the actual problem treated in the OP. You prove my point by the flags you fly on this post, and spend your VP to do it.
For that, I thank you.
I did not, however I have just responded to Bernie's comment regarding that. Let's hope the end of such harm has become visible in our rear view mirrors.
Thanks!
Edit: I see that I have now been flagged by the botnet under discussion. Clearly, such toxic influence yet remains.
LOL
Not sure I can add any more salacious details to that screed. If I think of some, I won't be shy. Count on that.
I have no intention of taking legal action, if that's what you mean. Nothing that can happen on Steem has any potential of generating such intent in me.
I have read claims of intent to pursue legal remedies for the specific acts I discuss by those affected by them. It is these claims that have inspired the post, as the impact on Steem of such action is almost certainly going to be negative. We are not economically in a good position as a community to withstand and prosper in the light of the terrible PR court proceedings would produce, and therefore I strongly recommend action be taken to preclude such public airing of Steem's dirty laundry.
If those folks claiming intent to seek legal redress of their grievances can be satisfied that such action is unnecessary, such as by gestures or payments to them by the offending party, then the consequences of malicious acts could be reduced to the community.
That is what I am seeking to instigate. Folks, such as his 'favorite Steemians' that have convinced Bernie to reduce autoflagging per his statement, likely have substantial stake in Steem that would be reduced in value consequent to the public revelation of legal action, criminal or tortuous, and the prospect of that economic harm should impel them to recommend appropriate action to stave off such court proceedings to Bernie.
Reasonable people take action when forewarned of impending harm. We shall see how reasonable Bernie can be. I actually am hopeful. He likes his money, and so do his favorite Steemers.