Good question and it depends on what you mean by equality.
In the post I mean equality on Steemit. That Steemers are given equal opportunity to be rewarded based on the same standards. When steemit presents itself as a meritocracy, the reward should be based on the how talented the author was in producing the content. Newcomers that shoot to the top because of who they are or who they know are being rewarded differently. It also puts them in a beneficial position: their future posts have more chance of being highly rewarded. I consider both cases disproportionate.
I understand your cynicism. The attraction to Steemit is its reward system. But not everyone is motivated by personal gain, and under the surface Steemit has a lot to offer, which many have posted about.
Equality is important because without equality there is no justice. Those born into a monarchy or an aristocracy have more rights than those who aren't, and your life suffers because of it.
Not really. Steemit presents itself as a meritocracy - fair enough.
Butnot based on talent but based on the value individuals hope to extract from your post. That might pleasure of reading content, or in creating a bullish environment to protect your SP holdings.
Hence why a famous person may attract more upvotes.
I consider that a benefit for the good of steemit but not for the individual. There needs to be balance between the two: without one, the other cannot survive.