"I agree, and I do commend the 'IRPs' that do declare, but I also feel the need to remind you that turning a blind eye to this activity (the undeclared, yet known to be)"
From my standpoint - there is no "blind eye" here.
This is the process for IRPs at this point.
We get a report that someone is an IRP. We ask the User if they have any requirements under the Securities Act of 1933 Section 17b. If they say yes, then we explain their requirements here as a commercial User to become a part of the IRP program so that they can disclose compensation as legally required.
If they say they have no idea what we're talking about and what would make us suggest such a thing, etc, then we send another pm. We ask for a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the above question. We explain, for full disclosure and to be fair, that if ever a government subpoena is requested for their account information that we will include their "yes" or "no" reply in our response.
If they still say "no", then we move forward with that as their reply.
A lot of the reports we get are supposition, sure someone is compensated to promote/bash for profit with nothing substantial to support it. We still ask - then move on.
There are other reports that we get where the links/info sure seem to support this is likely someone who is a professional. BUT, if they answer, "no", then our hands are tied. We are not an investigative agency, we don't have the authority or the resources to make a different determination.
Mvho, though - crazy and stupid to take any such chances in the climate the markets are currently in...Government subpoenas are something Dave spends a lot of his time working on.
Btw and fwiw, the IRP program was Matt's - he was the champion of it. So whatever the early history of the site was (and, no, this isn't an invitation for anyone to start a discussion on this), it did change at least from my perspective.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
