Let's put it this way. If it takes you longer than it takes to read the words "proposed hardfork to remove stake from Steemit, Inc controlled accounts" to categorically reject same, you shouldn't be a top witness on Steem blockchain. It is that simple, and clear.
You can debate to what extent top witnesses should provide leadership for the blockchain, but you can't debate this one. Top witnesses have basically one job, which is maintaining security/integrity of the blockchain as the primary block producers. This proposal by definition goes against that primary mission. There isn't anything to think over for its merits.
They have that one job under the guidelines of Steemit. But nobody said those guidelines are "good."
I think it still doesn't explain why it's a bad idea. I think there are multiple reasons why it's bad, but I disagree it is so "obvious". I do think it has merits. And discussing those merits can then lead you to find a solution having those, without the downsides.
P.S. Saying "it is that simple and clear," or "everyone knows", etc. is demagoguery. It's not actually addressing the issue, but painting, "If you disagree, you're not one of us" or "If you disagree, you are irrational," which is a subtle way of making ad hominems. I am not saying this just to you, but I've discussed this in the past regarding rhetoric in academic circumstances, so I'd like to point it out. It's bad form to argue in this manner.
100% agree... well spoken.