It was more of a general observation in response to the question about what happens when a few people have power and abuse it. I wasn't referring specifically to the original whales but that's certainly an issue currently. As I said it is unclear whether stake and power will diffuse sufficiently to negate or minimize these problems, but that doesn't mean they won't. I see little in the way of strong evidence either way, and examples from other systems where power and stake both concentrates and those where it doesn't. Our own system is too new to draw many conclusions from it.

Not to mention, we're starting to get more distribution of voting power (via delegation), which should help just as much as distribution of stake when it comes to what content is getting upvoted, no?

Not necessarily. There will always be a degree of golden rule where those with the most stake set the rules on those to whom it is delegated. In any voting system, stake is power, ultimately.

Regarding your example of a content creator being downvoted, it really depends. As the post discusses, there can be cases where there is a single large gain or loss in one place but a large number of small gains or losses elsewhere. If the rewards are redistributed from that content creator to many others, and that does more good in the aggregate, it may be a net gain. This is likely impossible to measure or answer objectively. Voters having different views on things is not necessarily abuse.

Also concentrated stake can take multiple forms. Services which collect up voting rights from many users and then deploy it in a concentrated manner can be a form of stake concentration and can lead to exactly the kinds of voting abuses described in the post. But it is difficult to ever say objectively when or if this is occurring. Again voters may reasonably disagree.