"...I plead for a committee of elected users with some delegated Steem power from Steemit, Inc., which could decide (in case someone complains) if flags are justified or not, and if "yes" just counter them with upvotes."
I strongly disagree with this. Bernie was involved in a flagwar (surprise!) with @fulltimegeek, and now Steemit is censoring all FTG's accounts. This indicates to me that ninjaminer Bernie has some sway with Stinc, and such an elected body being dependent on Stinc stake would not be likely to counter Bernie.
Nothing is stopping users from electing and delegating to such a flag review board right now, although such a board would have insufficient SP to counter whale flags nominally. I have also been flagged by Stinc devs in the past, so have more evidence to align Bernie's interests with theirs.
tl;dr evidence aligns Bernie's interests with Stinc's, and expecting Stinc SP to counter Bernie's seems naive.
Thanks!
Steemit, Inc. should only delegate the SP, but of course not influence the decisions of the elected committee (elected by the community, not by Steemit, Inc.).
Of course that should be made clear before, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.
Also the criteria of how to elect the committee needed much fine tuning. One could for example think about conditions like that every voter should be on STEEM for at least some weeks and had published some posts to prevent multi account voting. All that wouldn't be easy at all but worth a try ...
I just don't think that's possible. I am unable to recall an example of folks providing funding without having influence on how it's spent, other than taxpayers, and that's because we're just extorted.
Nevertheless, that would be my suggestion (Steemit, Inc. contributes only the SP, and the community elects an independant committee).
If Steemit, Inc. would agree to doing that, is another question of course ... :)