I suppose it all comes down to the fact that people can do whatever they want with their stake, be it upvote or downvote. Effectively, those with the control of the most stake will decide what is and isn't frowned upon.
For instance, 250 people might decide that a repost is worth being rewarded, and one person controlling enough stake can remove all of those rewards because of their personal views against reposting.
All that being said, it is impossible to create a perfect system because afterward, someone with an even larger stake could turn around and bring the reward back.
My argument is mostly against the idea that the community decides what is and isn't acceptable on Hive. It's more like a small counsel of whales making those decisions.
Of course, I don't have a solution myself, but it is important that we don't delude ourselves into believing that Hive is a democracy.
250 could be brand new accounts with no stake and 1 person with 15 Hive Power. There is a reason why one vote one account is not feasible.
If one person owns $1M worth of Hive and the 250 collectively own $10k, do you think the $1M should have more say?
You can get thousands of people with no investment, doesn't mean they deserve control.