https://www.facebook.com/WinterStarcraft/posts/846221178757619
Here is a reprint of the TL.net action and explanation:
Evidence has recently surfaced that indicates that Winter's stream has been the target of viewbots for at least the past year. Winter's public explanation for this is that other users have been paying for the service against his wishes. While we concede it is impossible to prove who exactly paid for the viewbots on Winter's stream, there is no question that Winter has benefited from viewbotting. The evidence is clear, and an analogous situation can be inferred from our protocol on hacking from TSL. Though it is very difficult for us to prove whether anyone was actually hacking or was just very lucky, we choose to act once sufficient proof was provided. We believe that placing the burden of proof on the accused when seemingly damning evidence is presented is the correct course of action, and we're willing to accept that someone hacked beyond reasonable doubt as sufficient justification for condemning them.
Given that viewbotting actively harms and undermines the efforts of legitimate streamers, we think a similar test is justified in this instance. For those people who do not believe viewbotting harms legitimate streamers, consider that in a world where sponsorships are finite, those with high viewer counts are likely to get sponsorships ahead of those with lower view counts. A viewbotter then has an advantage over a legitimate streamer and is more likely to pick up one of those sponsorships. For a more elaborate explanation of these harms we'll refer you to Avilo, who has a pretty extensive breakdown.
As such, in the face of the evidence previously cited, we think that Winter is almost certainly viewbotting as the alternate scenarios don't add up. If someone was doing this with malicious intent (i.e. to defame Winter), we find it difficult to understand why such a person would pay in excess of $1000 to viewbot Winter for over a year. Particularly when the drama surrounding Winter died out after the first set of accusations. Surely someone viewbotting Winter with malicious intent would have used that opportunity to boost him in order to amplify the accusations. Similarly, the situation right now is another instance when someone with malicious intent would attempt to amplify the strength of the accusations against Winter. As such we conclude that the extensive history of Winter viewbotting is inconsistent with a third party doing this with malicious intent.
The alternatives is that a sympathetic party to Winter (including the possibility of Winter himself) is paying for the viewbotting services in an effort to promote him in the community. This fits the viewbotting pattern observed in the evidence much better than the scenario where the viewbotting is malicious. In this scenario Winter is the benefactor and not the victim of viewbotting, and the responsibility to stop that viewbotting rests on Winter. We find it quite likely that a genuine appeal from Winter to his anonymous benefactor to stop the viewbotting would be successful particularly in light of sanctions from TL (in the form of defeaturing), community backlash causing damage to Winter's name and possibly further action from Twitch. We find this action likely because in this scenario the viewbotter wants to help Winter, which clearly the viewbots are no longer doing. To our knowledge, no such genuine appeal has been launched by Winter.
Our position is then clear. Beyond all reasonable doubt, Winter has been the benefactor of viewbots. Moreover it is highly likely that the person responsible for purchasing the viewbots was someone sympathetic towards Winter, and possibly Winter himself. Given the damages that viewbotting causes to the community, given that the standard of proof relative to previous actions by TL has been met, and given that having a viewbotter on the featured list compromises the integrity of our featured stream list, we have decided to de-feature Winter.
We recognise that Winter, as a direct consequence of being boosted by viewbotting services, has attracted a legitimate viewerbase and even some legitimate subscribers. But it is impossible for us to measure the strength of that legitimate viewership in relation to our normal featuring standards while viewbotting continues on Winter's channel. We will be reviewing this decision in six months time, where if Winter is able to show us that his channel is no longer supported by viewbots and his viewership meets our minimum standard for featuring, we will re-feature Winter.
Given that viewbotting actively harms and undermines the efforts of legitimate streamers, we think a similar test is justified in this instance. For those people who do not believe viewbotting harms legitimate streamers, consider that in a world where sponsorships are finite, those with high viewer counts are likely to get sponsorships ahead of those with lower view counts. A viewbotter then has an advantage over a legitimate streamer and is more likely to pick up one of those sponsorships. For a more elaborate explanation of these harms we'll refer you to Avilo, who has a pretty extensive breakdown.
As such, in the face of the evidence previously cited, we think that Winter is almost certainly viewbotting as the alternate scenarios don't add up. If someone was doing this with malicious intent (i.e. to defame Winter), we find it difficult to understand why such a person would pay in excess of $1000 to viewbot Winter for over a year. Particularly when the drama surrounding Winter died out after the first set of accusations. Surely someone viewbotting Winter with malicious intent would have used that opportunity to boost him in order to amplify the accusations. Similarly, the situation right now is another instance when someone with malicious intent would attempt to amplify the strength of the accusations against Winter. As such we conclude that the extensive history of Winter viewbotting is inconsistent with a third party doing this with malicious intent.
The alternatives is that a sympathetic party to Winter (including the possibility of Winter himself) is paying for the viewbotting services in an effort to promote him in the community. This fits the viewbotting pattern observed in the evidence much better than the scenario where the viewbotting is malicious. In this scenario Winter is the benefactor and not the victim of viewbotting, and the responsibility to stop that viewbotting rests on Winter. We find it quite likely that a genuine appeal from Winter to his anonymous benefactor to stop the viewbotting would be successful particularly in light of sanctions from TL (in the form of defeaturing), community backlash causing damage to Winter's name and possibly further action from Twitch. We find this action likely because in this scenario the viewbotter wants to help Winter, which clearly the viewbots are no longer doing. To our knowledge, no such genuine appeal has been launched by Winter.
Our position is then clear. Beyond all reasonable doubt, Winter has been the benefactor of viewbots. Moreover it is highly likely that the person responsible for purchasing the viewbots was someone sympathetic towards Winter, and possibly Winter himself. Given the damages that viewbotting causes to the community, given that the standard of proof relative to previous actions by TL has been met, and given that having a viewbotter on the featured list compromises the integrity of our featured stream list, we have decided to de-feature Winter.
We recognise that Winter, as a direct consequence of being boosted by viewbotting services, has attracted a legitimate viewerbase and even some legitimate subscribers. But it is impossible for us to measure the strength of that legitimate viewership in relation to our normal featuring standards while viewbotting continues on Winter's channel. We will be reviewing this decision in six months time, where if Winter is able to show us that his channel is no longer supported by viewbots and his viewership meets our minimum standard for featuring, we will re-feature Winter.