That's my fault, it should read
is automating the function of Curation not by default invalidate the premise of the function?
The premise of the function is that you
Consider what you're curating and that you've reached that consideration by actually spending your attention.
To go back to your premise, that you don't need to consider the "charity" each time, that you've been convinced and don't need to be convinced all over again, exactly what "bigger" picture are you talking about? The one where your Voting Power is constantly being "wasted" when it's not in use, or the big picture where if you don't distribute the unused bandwidth from your mobile it's being wasted as opposed to "donated", or the one where if you don't pipe your Air Conditioner water condensate to a bird bath overfilling into the strawberry planter that drains into the tree outside, it's wasted, or when you don't donate your unused parking space to the homeless people? Ermm I got carried away there, but the point remains that there's no such comparable "charity" because each and every piece of content needs to be consumed, and considered in turn, and by not voting you're letting OTHERS reward content, and equating FREE SHIT to self sacrifice is a tale tell sign of a pathological greed, soon enough you will brush this aside as if FORMATING had anything to do with it or that somehow there is a place for automating social interactions.
Nope, you have missed the point and completely ignored the section about patrons. My parents owned a gallery when I was a kid in a small town, they sponsored a few local artists so they had some space to create without having to worry about working for food and a roof. They didn't check every piece of art, they didn't peek over their shoulder to make sure they were doing 'right', they gave them space.
It is a position based on trust that gets reviewed from time to time. This is what patrons do. In so doing, the work of the artists were able to develop and get a much, much wider consuming audience than would likely have been possible without the support.
You want good content, support good content creators by giving them the space to do what they do. I find some people, I vote on some people. In my year and a half here I have cast over 38,000 votes, manually.
What are you talking about no self-sacrifice? I am yet to use a steem of what I have earned here regardless of my real world position and have distributed a hell of a lot more than many other other people who have earned more in much easier ways then myself. It is fine for those without SP to be on a high horse but when it comes to distribution, it is the people with SP who are doing it.
voting isn't a social act, it is a transaction.
Ah, you mean leave the pool completely to the bidbots? Interesting method for helping content producers there.
yeah this is going nowhere however,
@smooth's and @abit' s whale experiment was run before bidbots entered into the marketplace. It was before HF19 and was used to cancel out whale votes over a certain threshold. I know this because they both flagged my largest ever post at the time (something like 20 dollars) which had received a vote from @thejohalfiles. I didn't know about the experiment until this point but once I worked out what was going on, I left a message of support for them.
When it comes to curation reward, since there are much higher value ways to earn, there is an opportunity cost in not using them but the cost to community is an even narrower distribution. As far as charity is concerned, at least in most countries there is a tax rebate available on the donation, I guess you could equate that to curation return too?
As far as I am concerned, I support people who support the community more heavily than those who don't and, if someone thinks similarly to me but is unwilling or unable to distribute their value themselves, I say automate it, trail a curator who finds value, use it in some way.
And btw, I don't automate my own vote, I have cast 38,000 manually and distributed something of financial value to many, many people over the last year and a half because, I have a long-term view of the platform and I act according to that view. You might have other ideas but, attempting to make ideas a reality takes more than words.
There is no such thing as a selfless act, there is always a return of some kind which means no matter the sacrifice, something is gained back.
you assume that all users bring the same value to the community? That is a pretty big call.
Nonsense. This depends on who is chosen as the manual curator. You seem to assume the worst in all people, perhaps it is reflective?
Again, this is BS. someone can offer a great deal to the community but it is offered to people who can't afford to maintain that person. They still need to eat but their content might be utterly useless to me personally. I want them to keep helping people so, once I have made the decision they bring value, I will support them even if I don't read their content.