I mean, yeah, this. There is already a community guideline against this, so it is already “against the rules”, but it is unclear to what degree this is enforced.
Hypothetically, if a person can flag with impunity even when they know it is flimsy or nonexistent, they have no reason (I mean, other than common decency) to not do so. Mass flagging has the opportunity to put someone’s posts under a microscope, where it will now be even easier to get the person on a receiving end to have their trust level reduced, especially if said reduction is an automated system looking at the number of posts of theirs that have flags that have been approved, which would actually impart more power on the people willing to abuse the system. Like it or not, you could, realistically, rules-lawyer a lot of posts from basically anyone to have some kind of weak violation in them if you look hard enough and took a hardline stance on the letter of the guidelines, and at least some of those would probably get enforced, but it is still outright abuse of the flagging system to be able to target this scrutiny on a specific person or persons just because you don’t like the ideas they are sharing. I should stress that people should feel safe in flagging stuff as well, so no automating “if you have n rejected flags, reduce trust level”. The people abusing this know who they are, and the people reviewing it should “know it when they see it”, and at the very least be able to issue a direct warning to anyone engaging in this behavior.
If this is already a thing, then nevermind. But if not, the problem should be addressed head-on by directly penalizing abuse of the system rather than just making it more difficult to reach the level where you can abuse it (and making it easier for abuse of the system to target a penalty on people you don’t like or don’t agree with).