OK, I'll pitch in, why not?
For me photography is a bit of (sometimes frustrating) fun. I muck about with ideas and have a punt at the weekly challenges most of the time just to see if I can come up with something. Most of the pictures I take (not make, sorry but using that word to describe creating an image seems to me to be a tad precious) are for my own enjoyment, and lots of those are simple family record shots. I do not compartmentalise taking pictures. They're all for the joy of it. The explosion of digital photography has been a boon to the storage of precious memories for most of humanity. Agreed most of the resulting images are not technically great, but they capture the moment and that is what they are for.
Arty photography is, of course, a worthy, sometimes inspirational, and often emotional thing. But it is incredibly arrogant to judge the images others take on the basis that they are not gallery material. Who, quite frankly, cares? Certainly not the people who take the pictures. Exif data is sometimes nice to know, in case someone looking in wants to have a stab at taking a similar style of picture, as are details about how editing might have been done. I either do very little editing or lots, the latter just to see what will happen. But mostly I play my guitar.
There are undoubtedly photography trolls about the place who delight in sneering at the internet publications of others. That's just the way it is unfortunately.
So what am I saying? In a nutshell, the content of a picture is what makes it. If it's stonkingly brilliant technically then more power to it, but that is so secondary. The only role equipment has to play is as Oldboy says is simply if the kit enables you get the picture that some other kit might not.
I do like go ogle, that's special
BTW, flickr's member search function is case sensitive, but that doesn't matter because it's not working anyway. Just typed my Flickr moniker into the search box and it came up with only 4 pictures, and two of those weren't mine.