I think the problem with the approach taken in this particular instance is not the reasoning which I agree is quite sound - 30 views should not be valued at $100. But if we want to be realistic, 30 views should not be valued at more than a few cents. All the other value you see is not value created by the content itself but by things like investing in the platform, speculation and desire for reward. But this also means that if he applies the same logic earnestly, he should kind of downvote everything that has ever gotten a whale vote, doesn't it? After all, all rewards here are hugely inflated compared to the "real world".
If you look at the trending page, the rewards and the view counts, they are absolutely unrealistic. There is pretty much no other place on the internet where a few thousand views could have you rake in a few hundred bucks. The other alarming thing is that having more votes than views is something extremely common and something that happens to all of us.
The thing is, flagging literally random offenders (because for now this is not a consistent policy) is something that is unlikely to help the platform in the long run. It's mainly drama and conflict and if you want the price of STEEM to grow, that is not what you want. You want stability. And while people might be unjustified to expect their regular and potential rewards to be what they get, getting them builds trust and stability which are needed for growth.
So I don't think it's a good use of SP to downvote posts that are not abuse but "over-rewarded" because of other people using their SP.
And I also kind of disagree with the idea that upvotes and downvotes are really supposed to be equal. Voting for a post is something regular, but the correct word for the downvote is flagging and this is not supposed to be a regular thing. Everywhere on the internet you flag something only when it's abuse and on most places flags and downvotes are two very different things. But you are technically correct of course, no doubt.