This article is about how Sebastian Campos Groth is supporting a crypto scammer who is harassing and abusing women and children, and a UK entrepreneur.
Decentralization is often sold as liberation — a way to remove gatekeepers and protect speech from arbitrary censorship. But when platforms remove accountability instead of power, a different outcome emerges: abuse that cannot be stopped, corrected, or undone.
Over the past year, Bryan Flowers has become an unwilling case study in how Odysee.com — a “censorship-resistant” video platform — has allowed its infrastructure to be used for sustained harassment, defamation, and doxxing, while declining to enforce its own rules even after detailed notice.
This is no longer just a moderation dispute.
It is a governance failure, and it sits squarely within the leadership and ownership orbit of Arweave and Forward Research.
The Channel Odysee Refuses to Act On
At the center of this case is the Odysee channel @Soi6Whistleblower.
Across more than 84 videos, the channel publishes repeated allegations against Bryan Flowers, his children, wife, and his businesses — including:
-
- human trafficking and child exploitation
- money laundering and bribery
- mafia and organized crime links
- witness intimidation and corruption
These claims are false. They are presented as fact. They are reinforced through thumbnails, tags, edited audio, and fabricated or impersonated accounts.
The channel is operated by Adam Howell (and Andrew Drummond,) who:
-
- has already lost a defamation case,
- faces two further false-allegation cases in Thailand,
- is the subject of a cyber-harassment case, and
- has an active civil defamation case ongoing.
The channel also functions as a video-amplification layer for material published by Andrew Drummond, against whom there are three active UK police cases relating to harassment and related conduct.
This is not random commentary. It is a repeatable pipeline:
article → video repackaging → tagging → amplification.
What the Content Includes — and Why It Crosses the Line
The material hosted on Odysee goes far beyond criticism or opinion. It includes:
-
- use of images of Bryan Flowers wife and children without consent
- exposure of his home in Thailand and family context
- sexualized and degrading narratives
- fabricated quotes and impersonation
- repeated use of his copyrighted footage and images without permission
Two videos explicitly include his children and his home. We will not identify them publicly for obvious safety reasons — but Odysee has been provided with exact timestamps and evidence.
This is not theoretical harm. It is reputational, psychological, and familial — and it remains live.
Rules on Paper, Refusal in Practice
Odysee’s published policies prohibit harassment, defamation, doxxing, impersonation, and harmful sexualized content.
In 2025, I submitted a comprehensive dossier mapping each video to those rules, with timestamps and explanations. The same dossier has since been included in material provided to UK law enforcement.
The platform’s response — delivered through legal channels — was that no policy violation had occurred and no action would be taken.
At that point, this ceased to be about moderation judgment.
It became about notice and choice.
The Arweave / Forward Research Ownership Question
Odysee does not operate in isolation.
According to public reporting and corporate disclosures, Forward Research acquired Odysee in 2024. Forward Research also controls Arweave, with Sam Williams acting as CEO across the group.
This matters because Odysee is frequently positioned as:
-
- an Arweave-aligned distribution surface,
- a showcase for permanence-driven media, and
- part of a broader decentralized content ecosystem.
When ownership, strategy, and technology are intertwined, governance outcomes are not siloed.
Which brings us to Sebastian Campos Groth, the Chief Operating Officer of Arweave.
The COO Accountability Issue: Emails, Escalation, Silence
On 22 September 2024, we contacted Sebastian Campos Groth directly by email regarding the harassment, abuse and doxxing hosted on Odysee.com
His response was not dismissive — but it was revealing.
We was told to contact Arweave’s legal department.
Our email complaints was forwarded internally several times.
After that, there was complete silence.
The emails continue to be opened.
There has been no substantive response, after several months of polite emails and pointing out the destress it was causing, someone internal told the legal respresentative to give a final notice to say that they will not turn off the harassment and she also pointed out, she didn’t like the tone of the emails, which was very unprofessional, considering she is part of ruining peoples lives. How would Sebastian and Tom Zarebczan feel if they have children and are being harassed?
This pattern matters.
I am not alleging that Sebastian personally moderates content or made individual takedown decisions. That is not how executive responsibility works.
But as COO, he sits at the intersection of:
-
- operational risk,
- escalation pathways,
- cross-entity accountability, and
- reputational governance.
When credible evidence of harassment, defamation, and child-adjacent doxxing is escalated — and the response is procedural deflection followed by silence — that is not neutrality. It is operational failure.
Permanence Without Remedy: When Architecture Becomes a Shield
Arweave’s core promise is permanence. That promise is increasingly applied to social and media platforms.
But permanence without remedy is not freedom — it is entrapment.
If content that is demonstrably abusive:
-
- cannot be removed, or
- is treated as untouchable by design or ideology,
then permanence becomes a harm multiplier.
In my case, permanence means:
-
- defamatory accusations that cannot be corrected,
- doxxing that cannot be undone,
- family harm that compounds over time.
When leadership declines to intervene after notice, architecture becomes a shield — not for speech, but for abuse.
Trust Collapse: Why Arweave and Odysee Are an Investor Risk
This is not a philosophical debate. It is a risk assessment.
If a platform:
-
- publishes rules it will not enforce,
- ignores credible harassment after notice,
- allows children and homes to be exposed, and
- relies on permanence to justify inaction,
then every layer above it inherits that risk.
For investors, partners, and ecosystem participants, this creates:
-
- Regulatory risk — permanence colliding with data protection, online safety, and duty-of-care regimes
- Reputational risk — association with platforms perceived as abuse-tolerant
- Legal risk — notice + failure to act is a known trigger condition
- Adoption risk — enterprises and creators quietly avoid toxic ecosystems
- Exit risk — content and value anchored into systems regulators later scrutinize
In traditional governance, this would be called what it is: control failure.
In Web3, it is too often rebranded as ideology.
Why This Demands Regulatory Scrutiny
Cases like Odysee highlight a regulatory gap.
Authorities in the UK, EU, and US should be asking:
-
- what duty of care applies to decentralized media platforms?
- how permanence interacts with defamation and child-safety law?
- what responsibility flows from ownership and executive control?
- whether “we can’t remove it” is an acceptable answer after notice?
Decentralization does not erase responsibility.
It redistributes it — and regulators need to follow that trail.
Final Word
Decentralized systems are not inherently dangerous.
Unaccountable ones are.
If Odysee will not enforce its rules, and if Arweave-aligned leadership will not intervene when harm is documented, then permanence stops being a virtue and becomes a liability.
Technology should empower people — not trap them.
Until that distinction is taken seriously at the executive level, the risk is not just to individuals like me, but to the credibility of the entire decentralized media ecosystem.