What seems to be happening, and is happening in this document by W3C as well, is that the social value of information and the economic value of information are being conflated. Social media has created markets for creative works where these two values become entangled.
Another way to say this is that commercial art and fine art are different things, but they are treated the same by the web and perhaps they shouldn't.
When someone creates fine art, they are not creating art for the sake of its economic value. They are creating a work of art for its social value, and want it distributed as widely as possible.
When someone creates commercial art, they are creating art specifically for its economic value. That value may be enhanced by wider distribution, but it may also be diluted by wider distribution.
Because these two types of art need to be treated differently by the web, we can't have one solution that benefits both kinds of art.
We need both copyright to protect commercial artworks, but we need a system that encourages wide distribution of the collective information of humanity, allowing equal weight to everyone's ideas, outside of their economic value.
i.e. Kafka's ideas are more valuable to humanity than Beavis and Butthead.
This W3C draft doesn't take that into account. It needs to. We need to think beyond the needs of artists who rely on social media to ply their wares, while also taking into account their needs. We should not, however, codify the social media influencer art market, because that is not a market worth protecting. It's an aberration that encourages people to share personal information and works that benefit the platforms and harms society. We want to build something that benefits society and the individuals who contribute artworks that benefit society today and into the future. And if you can find a way to make a buck in the middle there somewhere, we should encourage that, too.