If you disagree with the content of someone's post, tell them- maybe they'll do something different. Flagging is just a sneak attack by cowards who use it to damage people with whom they disagree. If it were up to me, it would be done away with...or at least don't allow it to be done anonymously!
It does show whoever flagged the post, so it is not anonymous in that sense.
I don't know if I've ever been flagged...how do you find out, or do they tell you?
With the current UI it shows up when viewing the thumbnail/preview of your posts/comments. You can try flagging yourself once to see what it looks like. (You can unflag once you are done.)
I usually go to steemdb.com to view the flags and more data. Personally, I've started flagging based only on if I think the rewards should be lower, since this is a reason mentioned in the infobox on Steemit.com and I no longer view it as a "flag", but as a downvote with too much power.
Can we really expect new users to research and take into account our little cults most current views on good posting, upvoting and flagging each and everytime they do something? I don't want that type of anarchism, because that ultimately only means chaotic mob rule. I want clearity.
If I did as you say, I would spend all my voting power, every day, flagging almost the whole trending page. It is, most days, full of the most monumental crap. I don't have the power to make a difference there, though, so I spend the little voting power I have encouraging the people who I think deserve it.
Thank you for answering.
As I think you you point out very well, there are clear limits to how much we can vote. But that's fine to me really. We don't need to vote on everything and if we want to vote on everything we still can.
Myself, I've got almost no means to influence the high paying posts what so ever. While I'm fine with that for my personal, short term economic gains, there's a big issue with that for the long term acceptance and survival of this platform if the intent is to attract good writers/content creators, because it won't allow the democratic community consensus to be expressed fully on platform that attempts marketing itself as (and to some extent, in my opinion, ought to be) a community for the average users to select what content they like.