I gladly share my thoughts on this. I think almost everyone here is thinking about this topic. But may not express it explicitly.
That's right: the election of witnesses is not based on democratic rules. I have dealt with this issue on a number of occasions and have come to the conclusion that this platform does not prepare the ground for it. ...
In any case, the Internet is unsuitable for democratic processes as long as, for example, you do not have to give your identity card or fingerprint for identification and authentication. This in turn has data protection relevance and nobody will put this very sensitive data in a room that can be hacked (though I am not so certain about the future, people freely give a lot of their data into the space).
A social media platform is therefore only ever perceived as good through voluntary self-restriction, self-censorship and consideration of fundamental ethical interactions if one can read off a predominantly positive mood. People are not used to dealing with so much freedom, although they constantly call for it.
But a lawless space like the Internet, with all its cross-cultural variances, offers a great deal of conflict potential, probably precisely because individuals take it too lightly when they think of their expressions and comments. No one really takes themselves seriously unless they have thousands or millions of followers and believe (erroneously) that they are not role models. I think this is one of the biggest mistakes of all. You are always a role model, just like in the offline world. The silent observation of everyone who sees you driving a bus, shopping and interacting in public space has an effect. I would say that official feedback is just the tip of the iceberg, that silent inner observation and memorizing things you encounter always and everywhere is the part underneath in the water.
Steemit is like a big experimental field where users try to deal with this freedom for the first time, because there is no legislative, executive and judiciary here through officially appointed representatives. This is a problem in all social media spaces and only reflects what is happening in the offline world. There is no explicit freedom, no wild west just as there is no explicit captivity. I'm talking exclusively about modern societies that live by economic principles.
If you want to try to influence, you can do that, you need groups and others who share this interest with you and give you security through group strength. If you don't manage this, you may have the impression of being all alone.
Community building is such a front door through which people want to represent a certain interest. But if you are not a group type, you can also let go of the idea of actively making a difference. You can then simply write about topics that have aroused your positive interest. To be seen, for example, it is advisable to publish scientific articles about the steemstem tag. I'd think of this space of something which takes years if not decades to mature into something more adult. It's not the money chase, actually. I don't think people really care so much about it, it's "attention". Money is only the means for getting it. But the best feeling, I guess, is to free oneself from the urge to be seen in public light all the time.
I hope, this comment was not too long. I tend to write long comments. :)
Greetings to you.
Thank you.
.... I don't know, I'm afraid you won't like what I say, but I don't think masses will come here, especially not if they are seen as vicarious agents - anonymous drivers - to fulfill desires and longings. Personally, I don't like to be coveted as a millionth, as an attention booster to join a room where the ones left throw themselves at me newbie and just want my quantitative support and fresh confirmation. A bit like selling two million copies of a book and people cheering, but not reading the book. ... I'm a bit tired today. And I'm beginning to feel unhappy about the subject
... write what warms your heart and keeps your head cool.
Good night from here.