@Murderistic, I think it's a real misstep to let Mark be the face of of your marketing campaign. While it may be unfair to label him a scammer, it is very clear that he is not a good business person. Fact is, he did at the very least ROYALLY screw up and lost a bunch of money for a bunch of people. And yeah, it doesn't look good from the outside looking in. But again, in a civilized society where people have the right to due process, and there are laws against slandering/libeling others (as there should be), no one should be claiming with any certainty that he is a scammer. Having said that, he has rightfully earned a poor reputation. You should understand that and act accordingly i.e. NOT let him be the front man of any marketing campaign.
Surely you can see why many bristle at the idea of Mark's face being on the campaign. To begin with, this type of marketing often has a negative perception on its own. Although of course it's unfair to assume that it's a scam, that there's spyware involved, etc. Spyware in this case? Really, people?
Also, as far as having this style of marketing campaign associated with Steemit, the fact is that others are going to do it anyway. That is the plain reality. There are tons of these showing how to make money with Facebook, for example. Does that reflect on Facebook? I seriously doubt it. So that's just not an overriding factor for anyone thinking rationally and objectively. But I do have a couple of real problems. First, I object to using the Steemit logo in the campaign, or otherwise making it look anything like the offering is sponsored by Steemit. Also, I agree with
@fav about the bots information. That is not helpful at all. And I don't think it's helpful to bill Steemit as a way to get rich quick.
As for the reason this thread started to begin with, I will just say this. I personally appreciate investigative journalism or anyone's attempt to uncover a scam or fraud. But it appears Ian DeMartino is trying to make a very circumstantial case against Michael Taggart based on a couple of erroneous bits of information on a website, and based on his association with Mark Lyford (who himself has only been shown to be a shitty business person). That's pretty flimsy. Generally speaking, unless you have conclusive evidence, you better not go beyond warning the public about any poor business practices you have uncovered (which is clearly the case with Mark). In other words, stick to the facts. Be professional. And follow the law. Otherwise you may be worse than the person you are accusing.