I see nothing wrong with auto-voting as long as the bots are well designed. For example, curators don't have enough attention to review in detail every post on this site. So you either have stuff which gets missed entirely or you have to live with auto-voting in some form.
But auto-voting doesn't have to be dumb. An auto-vote bot can vote up any content which has good grammar for example. Or any content which cites it's sources so as not to plagiarize for example. Or any content which posts up unique images which haven't been posted on Steemit previously for example.
I agree. Just a view simple rules can go a long way.
I see your point. I'm just not sure if I agree. It would be good if each bot was unique. There would be a limited number of them. But would Steemit then have 10 bots that upvote based on grammar, 8 on unique images, etc?
Some bots could still be problematic. If you had a bot (or bots) upvoting unique images for example, Steemit could be flooded with users posting images before they figure out the bots vote is being diluted. Some wouldn't care and continue to spam with new images.
@patrice It's not steem that would be owning the bots. It's the owners that would own them. The bots would be voting based on the same criteria that the owner would be.
"But auto-voting doesn't have to be dumb". I like your line of thinking.
@calva upvote