And herein lies part of the problem: there is no moral authority.

None. It doesn't exist.

In fact, the very idea of it is a fictionalization. It literally cannot exist in this context. To do so would require individuals to step forward, make themselves known, expose at least what they want us to believe about them, and receive that moral authority by individuals believing that they possess it.

Never going to happen.

There is simply no reason to trust any of the whales as it currently stands, and I say that even while feeling that a couple of people may be – surprisingly – be trustworthy. But my individual judgment should not and cannot be taken by others to be moral endorsement.

Beyond that, "justice" is a surprisingly flexible concept. Individuals differ on what they believe it to be just on a regular, daily basis. If we are going to use this fuzzy ideal as some sort of guideline, somebody is going to have to step forward and assert what they think it should be – and they will have to have the actual authority, whether it be deliberate mechanical power or an appeal to the masses, to make it stick.

Again, never going to happen.

>"...the flagging must be done only by a respectable whale that has the moral authority ..."

I submit this is impossible, and also, that being flagged, censored, and demonetized only improves my reach on the platform, generates goodwill, and can only destroy my rewards and reputation, which only 'destroy' someone whose goals depend on them.

Frankly, I am glad to gain the boost to my voice being flagged provides.  Rather than being destroyed, I might say:  @berniesanders, if you strike me down, you will make me more powerful than you can imagine.

Flagging by whales has little to do with anything social.  It is demonstrably used to protect profits, and @haejin's case particularly demonstrates that.

A minnow can (and should) flag IMHO. Many low powered unchecked comment-spam bots and silly "great post" cut-paste posters that are quite safe to down-vote.