Recently there has been a lot of discussion on censorship:
What sort of content should we flag?
Is flagging an appropriate approach?
How do we prevent low quality content from gaining prominence?
I think we, as a community, can gain insight from the comments on the subject that developers expressed in Steem's whitepaper:
Freedom of speech is the foundation of all other liberties and any infringement upon freedom of speech undermines the only peaceful means of reaching consensus: discussion.
Without free discussion voters cannot be fully informed, and uninformed voters are a greater threat to society than losing the right to vote.
Censorship is a means of stealing votes through limiting public discourse. Steem is committed to enabling free speech and building a free society.
A few days ago, I was recommending a militant flagging campaign, but I now see that this risks conflicting with Steem's original vision.
While I still believe outright spam and plagiarism should be flagged, and will still remunerate it - I stand against any aggressive flagging campaign.
If a user submits sparse posts for example, or more pertinently, if a user expresses a vision orthogonal to the prevailing consensus - I believe flagging would risk dissuading challenging opinions from being expressed, which does not stand in line with the ideas expressed in the whitepaper.
Let's be an inclusive community that welcomes all contributions regardless of their ideological stance, and as "committed to enabling free speech and building a free society" as was proclaimed in the whitepaper.
Steem Paper link (link jumps to the page, just scroll down)