It has to cost something to hide good content if you expect people to take the time to produce or submit quality content and engage with the community. Otherwise you'll end with the things no one cared much about.

And to engage with the community you use a throwaway account?

I'm more of an example of the latter.

If I got paid a revenue split whenever someone paid to get public data that involved me, I'd be OK with it.

This is highly irrational and speculative in nature. If an entity flags all articles by another entity or group, they should be held accountable for their actions, which could be shown to be biased. Further, a "witch hunt" would be driven by irrational decision making processes in the "hunter" aggregate, which is the point of exposing the meta data in the first place. Stopping recursive irrational thinking is the goal here.

If a user flags incorrectly it is up to the moderators to moderate. Not for other users. Note that I said 'as far as other users are concerned'.

Incorrectly indicates agreement on concensus of the aggregate. I agree with your assertions. Moderators, as infrastructure currently stands, serve an important role in shielding users from the truth of things.