It's not semantics, it's your entire point:

> A merchant a) physically moves wheat to where it’s scarce (and valued more), b) physically moves beans to where it’s scarce (and valued more), c) figures out an exchange rate, and d) takes on risks of spoilage and banditry. For her efforts, the merchant takes a fractional cut.

This is not a middle man, this is logistics! An entire segment of the global economy, and not a small one!

> Ten people want to build a bridge. But they face problems: Who works on the foundation vs. the supports? How do we prevent the left side team from building something incompatible with the right side team? When is the foundation strong enough to start building on top? How do we know if we’re on track or behind schedule?

This is project management, also not a middle man!

Like I get nobody likes being criticized but dude, your entire post is resting on a bad foundation. If you start off an article about cars talking about how jetskis are the future of highway transportation, I'm not gonna take that seriously either, because you fumbled it on the starting line.

It isn't clear enough, though. Your argument is actually seriously muddled by your choice to redefine the common usage of a word to your own usage. The viability of your title flips depending on whether one adopts your definition or the common definition.

That's bad writing.

I think many readers have a hard time letting go of whatever expectation the title created in their mind and then refocusing to try and understand the broader point. Not that I support clickbait titles or poor communication, but I do agree with you that it’s generally more helpful to let go of the semantic details as long as the broader point is understood. But many people choose to get hung up over the words (probably) because of an inability to self soothe the first shock.