HOW DO WE DEFINE WHAT POSTS ARE 'VALUABLE'

Some conversations I had yesterday at steemcamp got me thinking again about value and what we consider 'good content' and to be 'valuable'. Who can really be a judge of good content or 'moral' behaviour.

I myself have been guilty of thinking someones comments are spam because they are really badly translated English and don't make any sense but they are better English than I can write German. Is there not a huge value in the chance to practise English and be able to blog and improve in other languages? Just because something is lacking in value to myself doesn't mean it isn't to someone else or a niche community.

The whole idea of decentralisation and decentralised networks is to allow freedom of speech and freedom to the individual to grow and evolve on their own journey yet I still see people feeling the need to flag people's posts they don't deem to be valuable or ethical to the community. This ends up resembling the very system we are trying to get away from of a small minority who carry financial power being able to dictate what is of value or the ways other people should live their life who do not have as much 'power'.

Every journey, every experience, every action is something that we as one source want to experience as part of our path to asenscion and is just as valid as the experiences we perceive as 'good' when we look beyond the judgment of our human mind. No one knows someones true intention by guessing at it through their social media actions and no one knows someone else's life path, choices and lessons they have to overcome. For this to truly be decentralised doesn't that mean allowing everyone the freedom to choose and to experience and to evolve in their own time? Our own vote then allows us to give credit to those on a similar journey or with insights we find value in.

The only real truth is love, and love doesn't separate between things it perceives as good or bad it just loves because it is all there is.