Also, the science communication bit is a red herring What? It's literally the core of the conversation. Your argument seems to be "it's impossible to accurat

Also, the science communication bit is a red herring What? It's literally the core of the conversation. Your argument seems to be "it's impossible to accurately explain GR to people in a way they'll understand, so we shouldn't even try, and any attempt to use analogies that may lead to incorrect intuition should be abandoned". I fundamentally disagree with that premise. It's the height of academic elitism, and presumes that perfect fidelity that few understand is more important than imperfect analogy that might allow laymen to gain some minimal insight.