I don't want to sound like someone who hates fun and I have personally misused the term regularly in the past, but usage of the term has expanded significantly from its original misuse to describe software that collects data on you for advertising purposes and it is now used to describe anything from software that isn't open source, to software/hardware that people believe to be back doored (commonly based on only speculation), to occasional misuse as a catchall term meaning "any software/hardware I don't like" (just as the word "wage slave" has started being misused to mean "anyone who disagrees with me/what I believe to be the common viewpoint"). This increasing misuse has started to become a problem as it can sometimes be hard to understand what exactly the person's problem with whatever they're calling "botnet" is, especially with the term's increasing misuse by people who seem to not know what the problem is with what they're referring to as "botnet" in the first place and who are only using the term because they heard other people using it.
I would argue that, due to the issues listed above, the misuse of the word "botnet" would fall under rule 4.
>>13198 I'm not quite sure what would work without potentially causing problems with discussion of actual botnets. I know a post filter would run into problems in the event of actual botnets being discussed (such as the current thread on /r/ about the possibility of an AI run, adapting botnet). A word filter came to mind when I was typing the OP but I'm not sure if that might hurt discussion of actual botnets as well.