The author and publishing business is different from sending your stories into competition on a blogging platform, yes, I agree.

I assume that very few people are very serious about it, and if, as you say, a publisher doesn't publish something that's already been published elsewhere, they won't really see it as a business for themselves here. More as a form of expression and a hobby to share with others.

On Steemit, at the very beginning, there was a very dedicated community of authors who worked in a similar way to a publishing house, pre-screening the ideas and submissions of the participating authors to pick up on weaknesses in the text passages and make suggestions for improvement. Before not all of them were in favour of publication, the authors stuck to this form of cooperation, as far as I had noticed. But since it takes an enormous amount of time if you want to work professionally and a profit was a long way off, the whole thing dissolved at some point.

Very few of those who take part in the competitions here have any real experience in the publishing business (me included). Which is not an accusation, just a fact. So one can state that the quality of the submissions - without the usual preliminary procedure - is of mediocre or low quality, and stories are invented that use the plots of Hollywood or elsewhere, i.e. write what they already know. Exceptions confirm the rule.

Really good stuff doesn't need readers to get involved or say anything about a publication. Word would get around on its own, for example. Or even be stolen.

Truly moving or taboo-breaking literature has to break rules, because conflict always arises at borders and only becomes obvious in this way.
Those who do not understand conflicts as opportunities for understanding will try to avoid them. In my view, this is a big mistake and a missed opportunity to practise negotiation skills, mediation (conciliation) and maturity.

Wanting a nice clean world on your own platform and this "at all costs" will create a world of illusion, the famous "bubble". However, the enthusiasm with which such a thing is sometimes wanted bears witness to a moral doggedness, not so much to an unpretentious way of dealing with conflict.

Those who are not prepared to argue will want to defeat. But victory can only ever be achieved through the use of violence. Either of structural, systematically organised violence (which is not obvious) or by using real violence with the use of weapons, for example. Both happen everywhere and all the time. However, the opposite also happens, it is just less loud.

Your comment therefore caught my interest because I see something fundamentally important in the debate.