I say no to this version, though the curated community list is a fine idea. Reason being is I have muted a bunch of Bernie bots because he was leaving photos of literal shit and dicks on my friend's posts - like, dozens and dozens of them.
So if my friend who he doesn't like comments on my post, and his bots leave nasty pictures (honestly, I don't know if he's still spamming with photos or not, this happened months ago), there's going to be a mile long list of like 75 tags getting his attention so he can come flagging. He already flags me if my friend comments or resteems me anyway, but man, I'm just trying to live my life and not see this unnecessary shit. To make it a list of tagging who's muted would invite more bullying.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If the muting also blocked downvotes then it will actually make freedom of downvoting obsolete, I guess I answered my other post
Right? I'm not sure if there's a technical solution that would solve targeted bullying without also defeating the purpose of having flags in the first place. Especially since so many people have approximately ten trillion alt accounts.
There could be a committee of elected users with some delegated Steem power from Steemit, Inc. which could decide (in case someone complains) if flaggs are justified or not, and if "yes" just counter them with upvotes.
In addition, accounts who repeatedly misuse flaggs in an abusive way (instead using them against spam, plagiarism etc.) could be flagged, as well, after a decision of that committee.