Apparently if you write that the inequality of wealth on Steemit is good, and everyone who questions that is just a hater, you get loads of money.
Well, fuck that.
Let me state that I don't have a problem with inequality in general. There are many types of inequality that are good. Inequality can mean uniqueness. It can imply difference and variety. And it can also inspire us to become something greater than we are today.
Just think of how a game would be utterly boring, if there was no progress to be made, and no other players whose skills you admired. In my opinion, it is the same in life.
However there is one type of inequality that I find utterly abhorrent, and that is inequality of opportunities.
Economics aren't everything
Now Steem is embedded within our larger economic system, and not disconnected from it like some game economies. That is a good thing. And with that we must accept that we don't all start out from the same position. People with more wealth will have a greater stake in the project, and without them, the project of Steem might in fact fail.
But it is another thing altogether to relish in this, and even praise it, as if it were a good thing that we do not all have the same chance to succeed on our own merits.
TO say essentially that if we cannot find our place within the given order, we should just bugger off, because things are as they have always been, and who are you to dare to critize the status quo?
That is rubbish.
To boldy go..
Steem is the enterprising flagship of a new paradigm. And every time a new paradigm comes about we have a chance. A chance to do things right, or at least to attempt to do so.
To paraphrase an author I hold in high regard, there is no greater force for change than the rise of a new business model.
But businesses are primarily concerned with success, and making money. So they neglect their duty to society to try to succeed in such a way that enhances the well-being of as many people as possible.
The best way to do that is and has always been a meritocratic system.
Equal opportunities done right
A meritocracy is one which rewards the best work to the highest degree. This means that those who create the greatest value for the community are those who stand to gain the greatest respect and commodation.
For that to be possible however the best work must be able to rise to the top without too much impediment.
This is currently not possible, or at least very difficult in today's Steem.
Even if a post is upvoted by a large group of those people scouring the newly-created sections for new great content, there is a slim chance of that post ever being rewarded, unless it happens to appeal to one of the very few whales who happens to pass by.
More to the point, the use of bots that upvote only already known authors has the effect to shut out new voices, because the lack of collective effort (including due to a lack of time the whales have) expended to find and raise up new talent.
This is not the hallmark of a meritocracy, it is the hallmark of an oligarchy, or an aristocracy.
The algorithms are not sacrosanct!
The authors I linked to at the start of this post, and others who I have seen express much the same sentiments, seem to take a very simplistic view of the algorithms that govern Steem today.
They seem to believe that because they reproduce the effects of the economic status quo this somehow legitimizes them, and makes them the 'correct' algorithms, as if there were such a thing.
Without men and women seeking change there can be no change. That does not mean that change is impossible.
Without confronting the inequities of the current system there can be no change. But if we do, if we do confront them, then change is possible, and for the better.
Change
If we stand together to challenge and improve the System, then and only then a new and better system will eventually take its place.
Tomorrow.
P.S.: If you have the time, please take a moment to look at the suggestions made by 