One of them even pretends to be a professional investor up on the trending page, daily, and will tell you directly content does not have any value whatsoever, at the very same moment his own content is generating value.

Those are some claims you made. But they are imaginary, a straw man (read further) you conjured up as a convenient way to stir the pot and find something to complain about and attack, and possibly rally other people to join you in this endeavor. Why you choose to do this, is something you might consider the need to reflect upon. When have I ever claimed to be a professional trader? False claim. I don't consider myself a trader, and am no professional in anything related to markets, crypto, etc. Why do I do those posts? Because I view CubDeFi as a good opportunity and can explain some things I learned to others. Other people do it too, and you don't go saying they "pretend to be a professional investor". Is this your goal now, to be the reward police and go flagging things you don't like or don't agree with, trying to get others to join in your goal by tagging them in other posts or making posts like these? Maybe you should reflect upon that pursuit. Why are you doing this, really? You have made false claims that come from a false perception which is driving your behavior.

I also never claimed content doesn't have value. That's another straw man. I said they aren't worth the money someone would pay out of their pocket:

Would anyone really pay $1 for one piece of written content on Hive, Steem or any other website? Maybe a subscription where what you read costs you a few cents on average, depending on how often you read it. It's almost all overvalued when you think about how much you would be willing to pay from your pocket.

That's what I said. What you claim I said is false, a straw man you can use to characterize me in a false way that suits your goal of getting people to agree with you. Again, why? Why the animosity? Why misconstrue what was said?

Hardly anyone here would pay out of their pocket for the content here. The overvalued statement was when you think about it in terms of what you'd be willing to pay out of your pocket. Not that they had no value of any kind. The rewards come from inflation, not someone's pocket. You don't spend from your pocket, you allocate inflation. If you're going to try to attack someone because you don't like them or what they do, you should at least avoid straw mans. It would help your argument to some degree.

The value of information counts to me. That's the value I look for to vote on. The posts you're going on a crusade to find that link somewhere else, that don't have enough words on the hive post that link to a video elsewhere, have value in the information they contain in a video. Because they aren't embedded automatically like YouTube links since most of them have been deplatformed, that's reason to say their content is not valuable or worth the rewards? Even a YouTube video requires a click. Because it's not embedded, that's the reason for what you're doing? What about all the people who post on 3speak, you still have to click that link to go watch it on 3speak (at least on hive.blog last I checked). Why not go after them as well? This tirade of yours seems misguided, and certainly based on some false perceptions as I have demonstrated you have regarding what I have said or what I'm doing. What is really going on that leads you to misrepresent me this way, and possibly think you're doing something 'good' or beneficial or worthwhile when you go flag people/content that you don't like how it's posted or what is posted, and tag popular/wealthy/influential people to seemingly ask them to weigh in and possibly also flag that content?