That's fair but IMO this is more a question of whether the Trending page is really implemented and featured in an ideal manner, and perhaps having this 'content' there is a way to drive home the point.
It is entirely possible that this is the 4th most "value-contributing" content item (after considering time weighting), even if not the 4th most interesting to read or feature. Of course, people can disagree on that too, but it is a different question from whether value paid (or in this case burned) should be used to determine featured visibility status.
BTW, I consider downvotes of @burnpost content to be entirely legitimate and proper. Stakeholders who feel more should be allocated to burning and those who feel less should be allocated to burning (as well as visibility effects) have equally legitimate say in the matter. The resulting consensus should determine the amount burned.
Agreed the trending page is not ideal.
And yes, the value of burning is hard to know.
Appreciate your acceptance of the dv.
I don't know how important the trending page is either, but since we are asking the community to help clean things up, I would rather not see this so prominent. I think it sets a bad example.
I realize it is subjective.
Actually, this burnpost project seems hypocritical considering many of the people supporting it would flag other posts for repetitive posts not adding content value. Steemcleaners receiving upvotes for spam posts is also hypocritical. But my understanding is that burnpost somehow is protecting the SBD peg to the US dollar.
That is why @hobo.media has been upvoting it. If it seems to not be true then @hobo.media will stop.
I'm neither for or against people voting on it.
It's not very pretty, the date is wrong and as you stated many people would downvote other posts.
However, it also serves a purpose which is to burn Steem, which many feel is a good strategy to decrease supply.
I have heard excellent arguments for both sides.