Can you put it down in other words so I can perhaps understand it because it sounds that indeed everyone after the hard fork is punished (actually already before) as bots were suddenly forbidden. What I don't understand is why what is forbidden for "everyone" is done in the open by the top and if it comes to this account every steemian is confronted with it.

Being prohibited is relative, in the sense that:

1. they can prohibit it within the communities, because there are the creators and administrators who decide which rules to follow
2. it is prohibited if you participate in initiatives such as the Clubs (club50, 75 or 100), because there are the rules of that initiative

When you want to use bots, they aren't prohibited, but you have to give up to join communities and initiatives that prohibit their use, because their rules are those.

In addition to this, there is still a negative side which is: on blockchain-based platforms such as Steem or Hive, downvoting exists. I abandoned Hive because I went against the rules of the "police" that forced me to publish a translated post of mine, giving up all the rewards. On these platforms, anyone who wants to downvote you can do so because the platform allows it, and there is the possibility that if you are unpleasant to someone (with or without reasons), it can target you.

The other "wrong" side of the platform was the one you were talking about and that I tried to "develop" in my speech was that of the rewards, that will bring a greater gain to the biggest: not for the increase in value of the Steem token itself, but for the increasingly larger amount of tokens that will be theirs in the distribution of rewards every time they perform a curation. The solution can only be found by those who create the algorithms that regulate the allocation of tokens, because it would be necessary to act on the algorithm: unfortunately, it isn't certain that these changes are possible, but I am not an expert developer who can give these judgments.

I noticed that an account with 0 (VP 100%) still can give 1 cent if they vote for the right posts on day 6 for example) and I also noticed that at times you believe you upvote (give) and the reward decreases (because?)

The one I talked about is the general tendency of the algorithm; which, considering the data I collected in the past, is the one I described.
However, there are variations contemplated within the algorithm, but I couldn't read the programming language and define them all. I can tell you, for example, that many developers talked about a time window (the first few minutes after a post is published) in which voters receive a higher percentage of reward for having voted.
Example: if the vote of a user X has a value of 0.002, he should have 0.001 in reward for himself and give 0.001 in reward for the author of the post. If that post receives more votes, user X will get a higher reward, in my experience about 3 or 4 times as much (in this case, he would receive for example 0.003-0.004)

I don't know which specific rules the algorithm follows, but I can guarantee that I received a bigger curation many times, when I voted in the first minutes. I don't know if it depends on the time window or other reasons (for example, how big are the rewards that that post would get).

I share many parts of your thoughts, but unfortunately this is what the platform is, with all its strengths and defects.

I hope I have given you some answers. Greetings and a good week!