I posit that the change to the reward and rankings which I contemplate, wouldn’t need to require that restriction in order to mitigate deleterious impacts on the community. It should economically motivate people to normally operate from one identifiable account, unless there is a game theory for their circumstances that benefits them to dilute their followers across multiple identities that still wouldn’t be deleterious.

As much as I may like the idea of "one account per person," I would not at all like the only way to enforce such a thing. Accounts would have to be linked to peoples id's or passports or some such which would totally ruin any prospect of remaining anonymous, which in turn would lead to self censorship, which in turn would lead to a boring, non thought provoking, stall environment.

I could certainly see the benefits of having multiple account/personas in game theory. If one wanted to write a certain type of thing they could use one, where if they also wanted to make music, which may not cater to or possibly even "turn off" those interested of the literature, one could create a different persona.

Full text search is resource intensive. Google has 1000s of servers. This can be done of course if we can monetize it. It probably means users will have to pay a minuscule transaction fee per full text search (perhaps 10,000 searches per penny). If we otherwise charge everyone collectively for the full text searches (as in how Steem/DPoS charges everyone for the “free” transaction fees by minting rewards for witnesses and nodes from the collective money supply) then it may become a searching spam attack vector. I actually haven’t thought about this engineering issue yet, and am just speaking off-the-cuff.

I would have no problem, with micro transactions. In fact I would encourage them if it was to limit the rampant spread of spam and annoying bots. If your paying a 1000th or even a 100th of a penny for a service, that's no skin off my back but it is to the spammers.