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.
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.
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.
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.