@steemcleaners doesn't upvote itself. I'm not sure it's ever upvoted with Steemit delegation. Same with @spaminator. That's been the policy all along. The stake is used for abuse mitigation, ie downvotes only. This has the effect of returning rewards to the pool.
Other delegations to accounts that upvote have the effect of disenfranchising and diluting the influence of people who have earned, kept, and powered up their stake. It's those delegations that should be scrutinized with care, because if they aren't adding a lot of value to Steem, they're taking it from the STEEM market.
Okay although I wasn't meaning to imply they were using the delegation from steemit for upvotes. The upvotes come from adm, on automated reports and comments that anyone else would be flagged for (using the delegation). It's been a sore point for many people for a few years.
We definately need steemcleaners and/or other services like it - as well as a healthy ecosystem of manual abuse fighters for steem to survive & thrive. If they're being funded through author rewards as well as being given massive delegations for free - they should be accountable and consistent with how they apply their downvotes.
I agree completely that services contributing to rewarding low effort/spam content should be scrutinized as they have a bigger effect on the market.
The issue with manual abuse fighting, as @steemflagrewards tries to do, is that "abuse" is perceived differently from individual to individual. We have people scrutinize even the tiniest of bought votes. Then, there are those only looking for big purchase of several dollars.
Sure, there are objective lines like plagiarism, etc. But, other things can fall into gray lines.
Thanks for laying the truth out there, @ausbitbank.