You've made these arguments many times and they are not convincing.

They are unsupported assertions not recognised by equally competent people.

If people have to pay higher fees (as your argument goes) then why would they choose bitcoin over another Blockchain or file sharing system?

Your argument suggests that their choice is between propagating the content or not, and that higher fees are a burden they are willing to bare to get the content on the bitcoin blockchain.

But that's not true, content that is too expensive (because they have to go out of hand) to propagate on bitcoin will go to a shitcoin or Google drive where it belongs.

I am not obliged to use the chain to secure the chain, that's ridiculous. Point at any historically authoritative source from Satoshi or anyone else that suggests that filling up blocks with fee baring transactions is part of the security mechanism.

The fact is that you are building your arguments on false premises, the idea that bitcoin will die if fees to miners are not high enough. Mining difficulty adjusts, and right now we are in a period where incumbents are preventing bitcoin from being used as a medium of exchange, but that dam will break and it won't be a problem eventually. Even if the hash rate goes into recession the hardware exists to support the network through difficulty adjustments for long enough to outlive the incumbent defenses.

The market for a distributed database is far smaller than that of a monetary network, but if you make bitcoin into a distributed database it won't be an effective neutral monetary network for everyone. You'll destroy by trying to save it.