You are entitled to not like the post, but to me it honestly doesn't look that bad. Is it a lost work of Shakespeare? No, obviously not. But it isn't terrible either. There are blog posts from some of our well known 'star' bloggers (and I don't mean introduction posts either) with little to no more substance than this that have regularly earned as much or more.

If you have evidence of abuse, that is one thing (and I did see a comment below about a photo possibly used without permission).

I really don't like the idea of users being bullied off the platform because their idea of participation happens to be different from someone else's idea. We need to be more inclusive, not trying to create some kind of barrier to entry for people who are just okay at blogging, and not superstars or famous (nor wanting to be famous).

I think it is legitimate to question or flag abuse, and it is legitimate to question or flag based on a judgement of rewards being outsize due to swarming or abusive voting on low- or limited-quality content, but I don't think it is legitimate to harass or verbally abuse someone based on these judgements alone without any actual evidence of abuse. To me it doesn't rise to that level yet, it is just an average mediocre post (though if it were earning $3-5K or more, I would certainly downvote it).

I really believe the better way to handle these situations is to attract more high quality content to the platform and then this arguably mediocre stuff will get pushed aside. Voting power is limited so people can't vote for everything. At the same time, rewards will be paid out every single day, so if there aren't any or many obviously great posts on that particular day, mediocre posts will get the money.