Semantics? There's no reasoning in your argument, you claim that it won't change anything but it will certainly affect numerous things negatively. You don't have a reason for why they will change in the negative let alone what will change actually and you don't have anything even if you had expressed specifically what will change for the negative because you have no way of knowing if it would affect whatever specific thing negatively, and you can claim whatever you want but if you cannot reason it simply it's a moot point. You think that basically people will act as they wish and that no measure of incentives and punishments will change that, except for your arbitrary nonsense of "platform wide repressive apparatus". Do you mean representative? Like the witnesses? Or do you mean repressive like flagging or completely contrary to the ethos of guarding freedom of speech/expressions that steem is build for/on/of? Either way.. Moot points.

Anyway if people won't act differently in different environments, if changing the incentives won't change anything, only make it worse, you seem to be fairly certain that the current incentive structure is as good as it can get but then again, people will do whatever they want regardless of incentives so back to the same nonsensical moot point. Semantics? Good one, let me ask you this, do you always assert nonsense nil explanation, or is this how you genuinely discuss this topic, or is it a chore/tedious for you to explain why and how it is like you claim, as you evaded previously this very subject you conveniently reduced to "popularity contest" and "the dumbest thing ever"?