mihomes - 1:37 am on Oct 17, 2012 (gmt 0) [edited by: mihomes at 1:44 am (utc) on Oct 17, 2012]
Let's be honest... they are more than likely (highly likely) to use this data somehow. If anything they can collectively see that a high number of people manually submitted a disavow for x page or y domain.
In short, it sounds like we will be doing a lot of the work for them. Although, this approach brings to the table something interesting. Now, we the webmasters, will essentially be voicing our opinion on what WE think is a bad link. Google can then run some algo or report to show high submits on certain domains, pages, ip's, whois registrants, etc. and possibly go from there to do something if they so choose.
Essentially it seems as though we are providing a manual review in essence to them.
For someone to add a disavow they would need access for a site(s) to do so and has a direct tie to the site in question or is paid to have one. One must have a reason why to add the disavow so the individual sees something wrong with it whatever that may be... essentially they feel it is doing them more harm than good. This provides G quite a good bit of data to determine that most people think a site is bad.
At the same time... you cannot add disavows to a site that is NOT linking to you (well, you can, but I would hope they check if it links or not) so it would be impossible to do the negative seo to a competitor in terms of this disavow system... assuming they use this data as a ranking algo.
Lastly, it allows a 'bad' site to remove the links others deem as 'bad' rather than ignoring emails and requests - should they choose to remove them.
[edited by: mihomes at 1:44 am (utc) on Oct 17, 2012]