Steemit: A Platform of Merit or Just Ho-Hum Reciprocity

Fellow Steemians,

I would hope you'll correct me if my assessment is flawed. If you disagree, I encourage you to, "Take your best shot!" Your critical assessment of my work will only serve to make us all stronger. In a Darwinian sense, that's what I estimate Steemit was created to achieve: a process of fostering continuous elevation and improvement of its ecosystem.

Imagine my disappointment to see far too many Steemit contributors devolving into transactional bargains with a seemingly weak plea, "You follow me and I'll follow you." Good grief. Have confidence in your work - some integrity and pride of creation. If one has to beg for a follower or a vote, then perhaps the merit of that work is somehow lacking. Relish criticism. Learn from it and become more competent.

Work that deserves following and merit attracts those outcomes without bargaining - readers/viewers have a desire to repeat successful, pleasurable, and thought-provoking experiences. They look forward to contributions without subtle transactional bribery influences. As I have stated previously, faux praise for average work cheapens Steemit - one little meaningless vote at a time.

I respectfully suggest that we be selective in those we estimate have earned our Follower attribution. Think critically  and honestly about the work you review. Award votes as if your were paying content creators with your own hard earned money - in a way, you are. To do otherwise is to dumb-down the Steemit environment and cheapens the Steemit vision.

For those who would care for an example, think of Ayn Rand's fictional hero in The Fountainhead, Howard Roark. Surely, there's a bit of Howard in all of us. At least I hope so...