From an idealistic point im with you 100% - But the way the current system is setup makes it to where this is basically the thing to do.
If whales self vote, people cry foul, they get upset, they think that plutocracy is taking over the system that could have given them freedom and financial fortitude. But, they feel to see that "freedom" means that all people are free, not just a few, and this includes whales to upvote themselves.
Since the system of incentives is currently broken, and people tend to love the populist conversations with cult like intensity. They pitchfork against these whales, call them names, insults and what not. A nuanced conversation is a thing for the weak and feeble.
So what do whales do? What would say.. @sirvotesalot do, if people are "hating" him for self voting, for trying to make money on his investment.
Option a) Shutdowns to the outside world and becomes a straight out spammer pressing the farkit button.
Option b) Delegates to a bot
So you see, delegating to a bot is nothing more and nothing less than self voting, but it removed the stigma just a little bit. Enough, so that people pitchfork against the ones who are buying the promotion services, and thus the delegators to the services can be shielded from the social pressures.
Now, does this make it right? Does this make it wrong? The answer is somewhat subjective, but I think if we had a diverse system for investment, it would balance out the scales a bit more.
I just think it's short-sighted to just exploit the platform at this stage. If it does grow then we all benefit, but those who abused it earlier may well get judged on what they did. Maybe they don't care. Steemit is too small to even register as worth using to the big players of social media. I'd like to see that change, but we are getting off the right path to making that happen.
It is, but its less obvious as you say. My recent delegation to @helpie that gives me a bigger vote could be a seen as a way of self-voting but this is deemed acceptable? On the other hand, @helpie votes people with 'good content' for nothing if they are accepted into the 'group'.
Where do we draw the line? If I also delegate to @qurator and @silvergoldbotty simply to gain daily self-votes am I then exploiting the system?
As the system operates today its not designed, or let's use the word "conducive" to make any type of manual curation profitable or sustainable. So, i will say the controversial thing...
If given the choice to support a good article writer, the new shakespear or a good human being... i will chose the latter without hesitation.
Helpie to me is an effort for good people who care to pool their resources together and shift the distribution a little bit so it does not syphon to the top with much velocity.
Now, this phenomena to me is due to many factors, but the one that helpie is fighting back on, the battlefront, you could say, is the inability to cooperate meaningfully.
So, what we are doing in helpie is supporting you... via your content, but the distinction is key.
That conversation is completely aside, and should not be conflated with whales self voting.
My position on that matter is this... everyone is free to do what they want with their stake, the right response to shit content is flags.
What happens if those flags lead to reprisals?