Some folks work as promoters. They have big budgets and get paid handsomely for attempting to place quality acts in front of a paying audience, and then the value of their percentage goes up, if they did a good job. Some early auto-votes are just that and if the promoter isn't paying attention, they might be placing junk in front of a paying audience who won't want to pay, and that's how you put yourself out of work or at least lose potential profit. Though I'm not a fan of blind voting, I do know for a fact most receiving auto-votes did something right first, consistently, in order to EARN the promoter's attention. Then it's like a moral obligation rather than a contract. The act either continues to improve and draw a larger crowd, or the act chooses to slack off, take advantage of the situation, then that behavior comes around to bite them in the ass, all while every other promoter noticed, limiting the act's ability to earn and gain traction in the future.
Voting isn't blind if it's automated and the consumer class simply wants to support an act, like you said, much like a subscription. Even if I'm attending a concert, I've paid at the door before experiencing what's inside. I only went there because I heard the act beforehand and they impressed me.
Anyway, auto voting makes a lot of sense when you realize your content is a product and you are a contributing member of the entertainment industry. Auto votes make very little sense if the product is just some human offering shortsighted opinions about the nothingness they discovered while vaguely paying attention to things they saw somewhere in their vicinity.
When I see someone getting a metric shit ton of auto votes and their content is good at the same time, I'm also applauding that act for showing clear signs of integrity. It's not hard for some to make a nice pay day by simply writing, "Blank."
I still don't autovote though. I love simply wandering around and getting paid to be entertained.
RE: Autovoter maximizers or content patrons?