As Marius says, it's all about the nuance. If it's only used to stay just under 100% and the rest is manually curated then as a blogger I understand it and see nothing wrong with it.
If the whole process of an account is based only on auto-voting then as a blogger I see no point in it except to bring disillusionment and discouragement to real author, which then for me falls into the same case as the curation trails, nothing worse than receiving 500 votes simply because 500 accounts follow another one (example of Curie on Hive for whom you can't even take comfort in the reward given their low value hahaha). Moreover the trail is even worse since it doesn't even reward the account that does the curation work but just takes advantage of it.
The last solution, the delegation to some manual curation groups (Several to avoid concentration of power) in exchange of a portion of the reward (10% for example to allow the curation group to grow and structure itself) remains, for me, the best solution when you have 0 minutes per day to allocate to curation. It brings support and recognition to the author by a recognized curation group and visibility to the people consulting their daily/weekly curation reports. But like the auto-vote solution, if misused, it can create much more harm than good.
the point is that when they do it, it will rather look like hive or steem.
Well, I would say that this should be a paid function and, for example, for each vote cast automatically, then a % commission should be charged, which goes to @null then if you have no other choice, it will make you happy but there is pressure to do it manually. especially if you have a lot of money invested and, for example, these few % is a difference of several hundred dollars a month for you.