Path A: A company sells a product. It's a great product, lots of people buy it. Then, something changes about the product. Thousands of customers do not like this change, and choose to boycott it. Economically, they don't carry a ton of weight, the company is fine. They make most of their money through institutional and government contracts, who didn't care about the change. With those customers gone, they build what the big players want them to build. Their end user product erodes over time. That's never where the money was, so it doesn't matter. Then, one day, the big players ask them to cross a line they are unwilling to cross. They lose the contract. They lose the whole company.

Path B: Same company. Same backlash. Instead of ignoring the customers, they change the product to address the customers' real concerns (even if it's not exactly what the users were asking for). The customers feel respected enough to stay. The big players remain the main revenue source, but underneath that, the customer base has grown. The company could survive on just those customers if they needed to. The big players could try to force the company to cross a line, but they know they have no leverage. The company is fine.

I'm not claiming this is a perfect analogy but it is relevant. The claim a lot of people are making is that plebs don't matter enough to be worth changing consensus for. They may be right, but not inherently. That's something the network is deciding right now. Is losing these users really the outcome you want?