The "content" problem on STEEMIT// What ive learned looking at another crypto social media site

This might be a controversial post and i wasnt sure if it was a smart idea to write it for many reasons. (im still pretty sure its a bad idea hehe) After im done ill probably give it to someone to check any holes i might have in my arguments.
The post will have to do with how Steem treats content.

What id like to emphasize is that i hold steem dapps that incorporate the social aspect to be the most superior of any social media site out there and that Steem, as a content monetization platform, doesnt have a competitor. But that has mostly to do with the ability to monetize your content and the unique economic system in place. I think, and you are free to disagree, Steem to a large extent has failed when it comes to content placement and rewarding universaly considered, "valuable/quality content".
"Value" is a point of disagreement for a lot of people because in many cases, "value" is subjective. "Many cases" being the important bit.
There is this pink person on Steem i disagree with about this every time.. His argument in the end always being:

Marica, you watched Idiocracy, if people want to watch a big butt on the screen in the cinema that passes gas, and that brings them value, then that kind of "content" has value, period.

I just cant agree... I think there are many other factors at play here that dont have to do with curation or bots or vote buying (well maybe with bots they have something to do. hehe). We treat STEEM as a closed system which turns it into a echo chamber where value and quality is muddled by what some call "contribution"... There are of course valid contributions on this platform but they are placed in the same pot with "those" that just play a reshuffling/repackaging game, in the end, ending up exactly where they began creating the illusion that something has been done.

I think there is an inherent problem with incentives here and i read a few days ago @kevinwong proposal on curation change and the criticisms of the proposal. The conclusion i came to is that i agree with both sides. I agree that incentives are broken but i dont agree that more curation will fix that ... I dont even think that we are currently talking about the "incentives" that i think are the problem.

At this point i see only one resolution to the content problem...

And that resolution is that STEEMIT needs to die for STEEM to live.

I dont mean it needs to stop existing. I just mean that SMT based platforms with their own rules, need to take its place as the dominant content placement platform.

That is why i wanted to bring up another platform i started posting to... That platform is "Minds".
Minds has its many problems from what i have researched and its use of blockchain is extremely simplistic, but with that simplicity comes what i find great about that platform.

While on Steem the incentive for content creators has always been: "Seeking support and "making friends" with large accounts, agreeing and engaging with high stake holders because they are high stake holders, following and supporting influential individuals simply because they are influential individuals"...

Minds have no such incentives. Its almost purely driven by users own individual determination of what quality or value is. There are no ninja/samurai tactics, because the tokens are worthless, there are no hidden agendas,because no one cares, there is only: "Do i think this deserves my attention for what it is".

I have posted a few times there and even though i gain almost nothing except a few nice comments, 3 of my posts are currently top 3 trending with 900 shares in 4 days. (I have posted on STEEM for 9 months, with breaks, and i dont have 900 resteems in total)
Most my videos have Steemit openmic in their title and i didnt forget to mention, 10 times per post, im from STEEM originally hehe
To see how STEEM compares with quality content placement, i did another thing. I took the video of a STEEM creator i value greatly @yidneth (sry i know im boring you to death these last few days. :D ) and boosted it.
The utility tokens you gain on Minds from creating valuable content can be used to boost a post.
Ill explain why i did this further down in the post.

At one point on this road we have completely forgotten what "quality" and "value" is. Watching Steemit now feels like what we have seen with Youtube in its early days. "How many friends do you have, sub for sub, like for like, favor for favor."

With everyone fighting to be the one to sit in the whales or dolphins lap, didnt we forget the most important thing?
How will this appeal to those that we want to attract to this platform. The content consumers.

Why did we along the way forget that in order for Steem to establish itself as a content monetization platform, Steem needs to create stand out content creators whose content can be taken and placed on the universal table of value and quality and be competitive with all other platforms. So that we as a group can be proud of what we had to bring forward. @yidneth.

Where is this sentiment? It doesnt exist at large. There are currently no creators on STEEM, that on STEEM, stand out in any regard based on their quality.
The difference in quality between, even the most rewarded creators is so staggering that it amazes me, but seeing some amazing creators not getting a fraction of what those that are objectively inferior get, shocks me.
Its easy to say: "Well this is what you need to do. Its not content, its networking and who you know." But thats not helpful. We all know how it works. The thing is that it shouldnt work like that.

Ill tell you where you can find this sentiment to a degree. You can find it with @curie, with @ocd, with @openmic....

In the places where your stake, your influence, your political provess, your SP mean absolutely nothing.

Do we want to talk about content monetization and content placement or do we want to create a political environment? Because i get enough of that with HDZ and SDP in Croatia, and i bet you get enough of that with Democrats and Republicans in US.

Thats exactly the reason why i mentioned this other social media site. With all its flaws, when the incentive of "making friends" (which in no way is a bad thing) is secondary, content has a opportunity to rise on top.

I for one cant complain about the rewards here.
Being liked by a few large accounts makes all the difference for me. I get to spend STEEM on SM cards, i get to liquidate it, i even used my STEEM earnings to fix my car and payed off a few loan payments with STEEM... I am in no way ungrateful for what i gained here. It is more i could have hoped by a huge margin.

....But at the end of the day, my rewards come from only 2-3 places. My content being seen depends on only 2-3 people.
When a community doesnt have an opportunity to decide what deserves to be seen,

it puts content creators into a position of a artist in feudal times where making ends meet depends completely on their benefactor.

And i openly admit that. If it wasnt for @vortac, @kpine and @dtube i would be nowhere. Im a "Steem child" all the way.
When all is said and done Vortac is the one that literally bought me all the equipment that i use to create videos. I didnt even own a mic before i started.

I am not saying we need to diminish their contribution.
What we need to do is increase the influence of smaller accounts. Find a way for them to act as a pointer for large accounts to find what actually is of value in the grand scheme of things. STEEM needs to start creating stand out creators and those creators are here right now, unseen, unpolished, because we forgot that on a content creation site, standards of quality need to exist.

And right now they most certainly do not.

Really, quality isnt something so elusive as you might think. As a classically trained musician, if i disregarded friendships, i could rate all the musicians on the platform based on objective parameters to a high level of precision and could achieve consensus on that with my peers.
Quality isnt hard to find. If it was Curie wouldnt exist.

Conclusion:

STEEM is an amazing token redistribution platform but it does badly when we are talking about content placement and no change to the code will fix that. STEEMIT needs to die and all its echo chamber nonsense with it. Jerry Banfield left STEEM and many will say good riddance, but why are we then creating a bunch of other Jerrys with the same behavior, with the same approach, with the same goals, just hidden behind a veil of novelty?

We need to create stand out Steemians, and many of those with large support, that are getting those big numbers based on "effort" (content spam) arent it.

Ask yourself... (sry Yid for dragging you into this) How many videos of the same quality could Yidneth make in a day?

I feel like i chastised a whole platform from a position of a someone with less then 1000 SP. :D

Ill see you around... Keep on Steeming.