- As long as flagging can offset payout, there will be a disincentive to disagree with popular thought.
- As long as people decide not to reward dissent there will be a disincentive to disagree with popular thought.
- "a number of trusted community leaders (with the ability to reallocate resources to..."
You can't stop someone with sufficient SP hoards from flagging according to his wont, or to upvote trash. You can't affect anything, so this trust would be pointless. - "Let's create a community [with freedom, freedom of speech etc etc]"
I guess you can try to appeal to ideals - emotional manipulation is perhaps the only device available to small SP holders to affect Steem and SBD distribution.
I'm not complaining btw, I just want to inject a little realism. This is not a free and fair society - at least not more so than other social media. And you are pretty powerless if your pockets aren't sufficiently deep. There will always be censorship as long as Steem is distributed by voting, and as long as vote value is directly proportional with SP holdings.
More blockchain clients will perhaps faciliate the viewing of certain content, but at the end of the day masses will be concentrated in a minority of popular clients, so won't even have a significant effect.