Hi @smooth
I've noticed that you have supported a different view and I think that is great. I agree there should be the freedom to do both. Where I find the issue, and you may not agree, is when that content that is being shared is more or less copy and paste, no real value added by the reposter and the content owner of what is linked is unaware that his content is being used to make a profit.
people who are great at finding and selecting the most relevant and discussion-generating links should be rewarded.
I agree that curation in this sense is surely worthy of reward, but I feel it needs to be done responsibly and not lazily.
A month or two ago it might have been ok to "steal" some content due to a lack of quality content and real rewards. But now we can and should do better. IMO, it was not ideal to have certain "curators" of content get handsomely rewarded while someone else could post the exact same thing and get nothing.
The content was not king. It was the kingmaker(whale nepotism) that made the content king. On top of that it was pilfered and profited from in a less than ideal way. Just because FB and other social media sites rip off the content providers, doesn't mean we must follow their lead or die.
https://steemit.com/music/@thisisbenbrick/can-steemit-and-the-blockchain-kill-spotify
This is what I feel this site can cultivate ideally. The idea that content creators, not the middle man, get a greater share of the rewards. When I see a curator getting the immediate rewards for supposedly giving the creator more exposure I get ill to my stomach. That business model deserves to die and if I have any say in the matter it will die.
Having been a professional content creator for most of my life I really can't stand to see the artist getting the short end of the stick. Sorry to go on and on about this matter.
Cheers