If they don't bother updating their autovotes based on metrics that provide value to the ecosystem then we have to use downvotes to encourage them to do so for the health of the ecosystem. This may also encourage manual voters if as you say rewards/APR are that important to check on those requirements before voting posts up. Too long have blind autovotes received the same APR as those putting in manual effort without consequences and caused a lot of authors to become the same as the one mentioned in this post. It's proof of brain for a reason, if you're not using yours then you're bound to face some pushback.
¿We? ¿Of who the fucking "we" are you talking about?
Are you by chance implying that you are the one to define and determine what the fuck provides value to the ecosystem? That you are the one who knows what's the best for the health of the ecosystem? Or that you have the slightest idea of what a metric is or means?
But what is the last straw of stupidity is that you imply "we" should and have to use downvotes to punish the autovoters you don't like and please your whims as you wish.
Holy shit! Oh yeah, tell me more about proof of brain.
You've done nothing but complain here for years and for some reason you're the minority here defending someone providing close to nothing of value to this ecosystem but being a top 10 author for months if not years due to autovotes. It's clear as day that users like that don't make this ecosystem better and only taint it to look bad to newcomers as many here in the comments have mentioned. If someone doesn't step in to warn the autovoters and adjust the rewards a little we'll easily become like trending on steem or blurt. I don't know what mental issues you have but I'll stop feeding the obvious troll at this point.