I do not have accounts on those platforms, and only have an account on Steemit because of exactly the reason you mentioned. I am not willing to be a cash cow.
However, I am learning that Steem is not apportioned to the value that my speech has, in a fair way, but is, in ways I do not yet understand, being apportioned according to the wealth of the upvoters, and speakers.
This will impact my participation in Steemit, and I don't believe anyone doubts there will be competitors to Steemit very soon. Steemit is the first of it's kind. It will not be the last. If Steemit is eclipsed by a competitor that values speech fairly, and some profit in the short term from Steemit's failure to value speech fairly, the rest of us that help to provide value to Steemit with our valuable speech that isn't compensated fairly will regret it.
I don't want that to happen, and that is why I am speaking out.
I am sure you can acquire wealth by participating in Steemit but it won't happen overnight. I see you just joined in May and you didn't write a lot of posts yet but are already making some money with them. I get your point but I don't see it as a big issue.
I am, as I hope is clear, not discussing my own financial rewards from Steemit, but rather how an appearance, if not actual practice, of unfair distribution of rewards for posts and curation, will potentially impact Steemit.
I do want Steemit to succeed over the long haul. I have no interest in redistributing the wealth of anyone, or make any claims that I am deserving of upvotes or wealth myself.
Most people strongly believe that every situation where desirable things are shared or distributed should be fair, and the arcane way in which rewards are variable depending on the wealth of the posters and curators is neither easily understood, nor does it seem to be necessary at all to create a thriving community of diverse contributors with integrity.
On the contrary, it seems to have been designed to enable economic manipulation and censorship, much like is happening on Youtube at the moment. Whether I simply don't understand the reasons for it, or why it isn't actually a censorship mechanism, or device to manipulate and concentrate wealth, it certainly appears to do so.
As most people will likely not get past the appearance to an understanding more nuanced, that I have not yet attained, and do strongly react to unfairness in a negative way, it is highly likely that, as new users join Steemit, and begin to understand the system, Steemit will suffer the loss of many potentially valuable contributors.
I am not making an accusation, and I hope that is clear from my repeated statements to that effect, and further my direct confession of lack of understanding of the weird way in which value is distributed in Steemit. I have asked for an explanation, and here do so again.
Why isn't there simply a value provided to upvotes dependent on reputation alone? Why the bizarre interplay between the wealth of the poster, upvoters, and time of the upvote? None of this seems to make any sense - except as a mechanism potentially useful to concentrate wealth, and censor speech via an economic mechanism of control, exactly as is so alarmingly being done on Youtube today.
That censorship is driving a lot of the adoption of Steemit, and that is a very clear and obvious demonstration that people will flee to competing platforms as a result of such manipulation. Steemit appears, and purports, to be devoted to creating a new way for people to use social media, that is more fair and beneficial to it's users.
Making it more simple, and removing even the appearance of unfair distribution, and worse, the potential to censor people economically, just makes sense. I want Steemit to succeed, because we do need to change the world, so that people do have more freedom to speak, and are rewarded more for their contributions that bring value to their community.
That's why I am posting. None of my concern is in the least little bit seeking wealth for myself, and I hope that is very clear.
Thank you for your substantive reply!
The way you write is very unpleasant to read with all the comma's but I think you should try to figure out how the system works. It might take away some of your concerns.
Thank you for your constructive advice, on both counts. Believe it or not, I think you are right about my writing. My problem is that my fingers are unable to keep up with my head, and so I make lots of run on sentences (amongst other things I am sure).
I'll work on that, thanks to your good advice.
I'm happy you understand I meant it as constructive advice. I think it will help you get your points across as they are interesting.