With your other examples, they don't have an open wallet and the immediate earnings aren't visible to the customer at time of purchase. They are a false equivalence.
I'm not sure your rush-to-disqualify is valid.
Everybody knows the "artists" on the radio make more money than your local garage band. They don't need a "public wallet" in order for anyone to reasonably draw such a conclusion.
Everybody knows the "global-super-store" makes more money than your local mom-and-pop sole proprietorship. Nobody needs to see a "public wallet" in order for anyone to reasonably draw such a conclusion.
And, I took no moral stance as far as I recall,
Your entire post revolves around "fairness" and "quality" and "abuse".
Heck your opening sentence is explicitly about "community standards" (ethics).
These are all clearly ethical/moral/normative concepts.
I'm not trying to "put words in your mouth", I'm just trying to understand, if I distill the essence of your post, how do your core principles apply to a non-steem, real-world economy.
Should every millionaire hollywood hack script-writer and low-effort singer/producer/performer do more to "give back" to "the community"? Should we boycott radio and television shows that are syndicated or re-released on DVD and or streaming because they're "not original enough"?
RE: Posting frequency and the blurry line