You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: In a few minutes, and with Steemit's full approval, @Bloom (Blumenthal? Bloomberg?) will come along & wipe out my posts...
Lol "if you get rewarded for curation is it curation?" aka:
If you get rewarded to make music, is it music.
Try to make sense. Dodging my point doesn't make you right. It just makes you irrelevant.
My point is that casting votes for money isn't curation, which is casting votes for content and creators. A better analogy than making music would be the Payola scandal back in the '50s, where DJ's on the radio were just playing the cuts they got paid to, and not curating the music. To stick with making music, then you should have started with writing and posting, not curating, because that's analogous.
Edit: I replied before I checked to see what I had said you were replying to, and I don't even know where you came up with your comment. It isn't a quote from my comment above. So, not only were you avoiding the point I have made many times, but you were putting words in my mouth.
Have you no self respect? What good could it do you to 'win' an argument you made up in your head? I make statements that express my views, and if you make up your own statements that you pretend are my views and argue those, then just leave me out of it, because you're having a conversation with yourself.
Yes, because when you're paid for what you do it stops being whatever you're doing and is rendered as a tainted cousin at best of what you've done.
You said previously to curators getting paid by museums:
Sure it is, but at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is do they make money by curating? Undoubtedly, and poor curation will get them replaced I imagine, but that's also beside the point, point being that they get paid for what they do, and likewise they make money directly by their work, if they curate well they will undoubtedly ask for better pay. Exactly like artists get paid to perform, exactly like curators here get paid to perform. You though, claim that it's profiteering off the content, that by investing into the platform, staking, and voting for content to be rewarded while also being rewarded for rewarding content, that the stakeholders are extracting value from the platform and from the content, which is pure nonsense since the act of staking and the act of rewarding the reward of content is where the platform gains it's value both in the utility aspect and in speculation / price discovery aspect.
I would hope that it's both, that when you Steemit Upvote, you're playing a betting game, like gambling, which means rewards, money, depending on how good you play the voting game; and it is also curation if you resteem it or it is curated (moved) to the trending page. Also, more people may consider reading it if it made more money. For example, if I saw a post that made like $50,000, then I would click on it because I don't think any post has ever made that much money on Steemit. So, money talks. If I had to pick one or the other, I would say it is not really curation and it is mostly a gambling game which involves possibly winning some money for betting and that also means, as seen with all those people who buy lottery tickets, that many people lose and make either no money or very little and that is kind of how it works. If everybody won, then it might not be a game.
It's not betting since it's not a matter of win/lose, and it's no different from commenting or posting as far as contributions having the chance to be rewarded.