Sort:  

Law enforcement? You're kidding right?

] "Hello, is this Law Enforcement?"
[ "Yes. Do you have an emergency?"
] "There entirely too many shady things are happening here regarding all kind of steemit 'cleaners.'"
[ "I'm sorry sir, I didn't catch that last part. What kind of cleaners?"
] "The steemit 'cleaners.' There's too many shady things."
[ "Did you say steam cleaners?"
] "Yes".
[ "Are the steam cleaners at your location right now?"
] "No, what do you mean? They're on the blockchain."
[ "Did you say block chain?"
] "Yes."
[ "Umm. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're reporting."
] "They did it again! I got another downvote. Do something!"
[ "Sir, I'm still not seeing the problem. Is someone being loud? Is the noise of the steam cleaner disturbing your peace?"
** click **

Oh, you're serious.

Ok, so you believe the FBI would agree that an injury occurred because a) steemit represented censorship resistance and b) steemit allowed cleaners to censor content.

Not only that, but it steemit represented that buying tokens are required to become even more censorship resistant while at the same time, failed to post rules on how to avoid censorship.

Here's where that fails to meet the criteria of injury: your definition of censorship.

Good, I'm glad we can take censorship off the table. Primarily because censorship is suppression or prohibition of ideas by state actors and not connected to private incentive systems like rewards pools.

Now that we're not talking about censorship, what is the remaining injury that the FBI would investigate?