This is just a brief note on the debate over upvotes, downvotes, and "good quality" posts. There are people who often lament the presence of "shitposts" that consist of an image and a brief message, Instagram-like.
Here is a banner ad currently running on Steemit, presumably by the people who run the place.
Notice that the ad says, "Where social media meets cryptocurrency."
It doesn't say "Where blogging meets cryptocurrency."
Nor does it say, "Where good quality content meets cryptocurrency."
Social media consists of things like blogs, Minds, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, Youtube, Reddit, Tumblr, Pinterest, Flickr, Meetup, and even Myspace.
Social media consists of a blend of different types of content. Some good. Some bad. Some offensive. Some uplifting. Stupid. Moronic. Intelligent. Entertaining.
We all have our audiences with different expectations on the quality of what we post. Obviously, the more you cater to your audience, the more you will earn.
If we see content we do not like, it's a waste of voting power to downvote. This is especially when you consider you were not its intended audience. Steemit has feeds from various front ends that do not necessarily bother with requiring each post to be a Grade A essay.
Personally, I would reserve downvotes for posts that are being belligerent and inciting harm to others. I might even be convinced to upvote a post with which I disagree. For the most part, there is tons of content that doesn't even inspire a look and goes unrewarded. I think that's punishment enough without me going around downvoting.