Jep, totally on board with the cleanup. Get that junk out!
But:
Can we make a clear distinction between trash and casualposts?
of low-effort posts, like single mobile photo with few words, automatically crated content etc.
I still think, that even there is a vast difference between those posts.
One gritty photo (which might even be plagarized) with totally broken (not even understandable) english? Okay trash.
One photo with a normal quality, which still looks good and some nice words, which are just some quick notes? A well made meme? One nicely done sarcastic comment on an article? Casual post.
Twitter became so big, because it has a maximum character count, not a minimum.
Don't get me wrong here: I'm not saying that those long posts are bad. I'm just saying that not every "short" post is bad.
(Also it will get kinda hard to find hundreds of posts per week which are hitting specific high words and "quality" criteria.)
Also those casual posts don't have to get hundreds of bucks, but a little token of appreciation once in a while, would be really nice for them.
(Who knows? Maybe that one meme is so damn well made, it will be everywhere after that.)
Agree on all points :) Probably the manual review of curations is crucial here.
Sometimes a long post can just be a long word salad without much value and another can be short but still convey a great story/idea. For me a post should tell a good story or make me want to read more from that author.