Given the decent amount of discussion I have seen recently about how to use Hubski, I'd like to point you to this /r/TheoryofReddit discussion.
The discussion I think talks about the motivations behind Hubski, and furthermore, it gives us a way to talk about how to use hubski. It talks about popular content on reddit, how it represents the average of all the users interests, and thus occupies the same realm as pop music, or art in a dentists office. It appeals to everyone, but isn't very good.
Now, what this means for Hubski, is that by following hashtags (as I have heard kleinbl00 suggests) gives people the average/popular content from that category. Since hubski is pretty small right now, and the average opinion is still of pretty high quality that is a pretty good strategy for filtering content, even if it is the same way that reddit tries to solve the problem.
But, as the quality of popular content drops, you need a better way to sort out, whose opinion you value, and whose you don't. Thus, by following people, as is initially encouraged, you can keep the average quality of your feed high, because all of the content is filtered by someone whose opinion you value. As hubski grows this becomes important, but while the community is still small, it is hard to see the value of following specific people.
I guess this post isn't really about how how to use Hubski, but it is about when the functions that make hubski different than an up vote, downvote system. Right now, the follow function seems like a twitter thing (like following power users or internet celebrities) when it really only becomes important as Hubski get bigger.