Taking a different perspective . . .
I was talking to a casino manager, a few weeks ago, and he commented that the standard of Blackjack players has generally got better (Internet advice would, I believe have a bearing on this) resulting in lower hold %'s for the casino.
Casino Managers are set targets by upper management and, rightly or wrongly, these targets included hold %'s for table games. Obviously, the overall win per day would be the figure that pays the bills.
The hold % for regular Blackjack varies from state to state but it has decresed due to more player awareness. The manager that I spoke to told me what his target % was and said that the only reason that he could keep his double decks games on the floor was because he had 'Super Fun' (he hasn't got 6/5). The 'Super Fun' compensated for the low % gained from the double deck.
So, playing Devil's Advocate, if you remove all of the higher % games then the number of better % games would be reduced to compensate. The multi-deck games are still producing enough hold % so the casino have not altered those games, however, the single deck and double deck are returning around 10% hold with regular rules.
If single and double deck games become less profitable then the danger is that these games will become less and less available with the end result being more slot machines or other types of table games to replace them.
By educating the general public then you could be deteriorating the standard of Blackjack games in the future. Imagine, for example, that everybody was educated into playing perfect Basic Strategy - single deck would disappear (although I know that it is a rare breed nowadays anyway).
When '3-card poker' rules changed this had the effect of changing the 'house edge' from 2% to 7%. End result is that the tables are still full and the game is still popular. There was no outcry of players being ripped off (that I know off) despite the edge on the game being higher than any Blackjack game available.
Nevertheless, I have based this viewpoint from another perspective. It doesn't mean that I agree with the principle behind these higher hold % games. I can certainly understand the view that acceptance of '6/5' will allow casinos to enjoy a full table without offering a 'fair' (what is fair?) edge on the game.
Basically, card counters have enjoyed decent games because the casino will make their profit from 'average' players. In fact a lot of professional players say that they would never educate a 'ploppy' at the table as the losses that they occur pay the professional's wages. By not adhering to Basic Strategy a player can lose well over 1% extra on top of the house edge. If a 'ploppy' plays at a 3% disadvantage then the '6/5' rule, for example, would incur an extra 25% disadvantage not 8 times worse off in his or her case.
In fact some of the best Blackjack games available tend to be in places where the players are of a poor standard. The casino can afford to employ favourable rules because they get their share from the players' mistakes.
Just an alternate perspective.
Best regards
'Switch'