I’m a little confused about the statements regarding how you were rewarded or not rewarded for your subjectively good content. This seems to be a common complaint for most users. Is this not simply a natural consequence of “popularity?” Most users across social media in general will never have “popular” content. The same will be true for users here as well. Expectations of new users are mostly unreasonable.
As for the rest of the post - stakeholders can have opinions about anything discussed here...and they can even vote accordingly. One may call these opinions “shaming,” but they’re still just opinions by stakeholders about what they think the platform should be. If we’re talking about anarcho-capitalist ideology or an economic platform in general that’s built around stake-based voting, then that’s just the nature of the beast. And to be clear, “shaming” the “shamers” is just as valid, but make sure you can recognize that this is essentially what you’re doing.
People can do what they want with their stake and others can criticize that behavior. The only thing that matters in my book is whether or not the behavior is actually censored by some central “authority.” I don’t consider a user or any affiliated group of users as a “central authority.” Some might disagree with that opinion.
On that note - there is a group of accounts that have a considerable majority of stake in the blockchain/platform that have indeed “conditioned” behavior around here and have decided to pick “winners” and “losers.” They have also stacked witnesses in the past and have attempted to silence their critics. They can do that if they want but it’s still not helpful in any way whatsoever. Speaking out against these people - or criticizing any person or group in general - shouldn’t be considered “toxic” either. Criticism is more appreciated and needed than blind praise and continual fluff, especially when there are actual, persistent problems.
"This seems to be a common complaint for most users. Is this not simply a natural consequence of “popularity?”"
I would have thought so. However, it is such a persistent complaint I have written about it rather bluntly in the past:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@lexiconical/steemit-like-life-is-a-popularity-contest-embrace-it-or-devote-your-efforts-to-other-pursuits-your-problem-is-not-the-reward
"One may call these opinions “shaming,”"
Just to clarify, I agree with the clause preceding this one, and I'm not calling voting/flagging shaming. I'm talking about a softer form of more cultural enforcement, although I think flagging users for tagging mistakes is capricious at best.
"And to be clear, “shaming” the “shamers” is just as valid, but make sure you can recognize that this is essentially what you’re doing."
Agreed, I did point the irony inherent here out twice. However, I am mostly arguing for inaction, rather than controlling other's actions. Silver rule.
"I don’t consider a user or any affiliated group of users as a “central authority.”"
Eventually, a large enough affiliated group is indistinguishable fro a central authority, no? Can appropriate limits be defined?
"Speaking out against these people - or criticizing any person or group in general - shouldn’t be considered “toxic” either. Criticism is more appreciated and needed than blind praise and continual fluff, especially when there are actual, persistent problems."
I couldn't agree more.
Maybe it is "the nature of the beast" (as initially started up and implemented now) to concentrate Steem and therefore power into the hands of a few, making them a de-facto central power block against which any other sub-group of any size is powerless yet depends on for votes. I would argue that the effect on the whole group of Steemit users is as similar as makes no difference, and that only the good will of whales can break this effect, not the system itself, no matter how many disagree with it.