Firstly because I hate censorship.
It's not censorship. In fact it's bonafied curation and only that. Even the times when people flag stuff simply because of opinion, it's what makes free speech beautiful, that people can speak their minds. Flagging is speaking one's mind, and it's also curating content.
Secondly because a bunch of fascist nazis could potentially screw up our supposedly uncensored platform
Without clarity, vision is useless, and to have a clear sight of what we are looking at the distinction has to be made: supposedly uncensored.
Because of the excluded middle principle, the statement must be true or false, it's either censorship proof or it's not.
Let's say that a bad review, a one star out of 5 or 100 is the problem, and that curation and bad or even completely fabricated reviews are censorship. Then the solution to censorship is to censor people, as others have called in this thread to remove and ban such people and you have done that as well, by saying that bad reviews, negative curation should be removed, people shouldn't get to boo or jeer at people, and if they do they should only do it at half the volume of a cheer.
It's not censorship because people speak their minds, it's censorship when people cannot speak their minds. As long as people can comment in spite of being flagged, then it cannot be censorship. Curating content as crap is all that it is.
For censorship to happen like you see it, I take it an army of people will keep numerous accounts in check, in turn funding the platform and locking in investment, to keep up with the disproportionate limitless power of one user to make noise versus their ever depleting voting power to make noise. If they're curating the content in this abusive, noisy way becomes so big, there will be a need to do something about it, and something will happen and we will cross that bridge then.
And thirdly because this is all so easy to fix. It's like watching a slow motion train wreck - we just need to ditch bloody flagging!
Ditching the flagging allows people to game the platform without any way to check such behavior. Without flagging, people could invest into the platform, even a substantial amount, but not necessarily as it will be attractive all over the board, and self vote exclusively which would guarantee the maximum return. There wouldn't be any explaining anything, because you could simply spam a post, write 5 comments, and upvote it, which will make it guaranteed profit, and if you invested enough you can do this a bit before everyone gets ready to sell off.
Flagging has always been the opposite of an upvote in order to curate content, yes it can be abused, but that doesn't make it censorship, abused flagging isn't rampant abuse or of such magnitude that it requires the community do something or perish, we don't need to jump to action quite yet.
In case some army of bots are amassing, look at it like this, first they lock in steem power which directly affects the value and creates steem to be rewarded, then they will be easy to spot as hardly is a troll a critical, creative, or interesting person, the are here to create noise, noise in enough force can compromise this platform, but we can always combat noise with noise, or we can keep posting in spite of noise, as if noise doesn't even exist, either way, rewards or no rewards, we have our freedom.
Well I can't argue with that because there are only three parts that make any sense and they are the grey parts that I wrote :)