People can point to incentive structures like grants etc, and to the implications in terms of the meaning of metrics etc but the real harm is in how it shifts mental focus and attention collectively.
It's not ok to let minor things or things you think are obvious go anymore to focus on bigger picture issues, that might be "riskier" but nonobvious. The way that plays out too is incredibly dependent on your institutional social environment etc.
So much of this is difficult to easily quantify in ways that can be easily studied. I loved this paper for example, but it's easy for me to think of papers in my own field that would look "disruptive" in terms of citation networks but are really the same content. There's these weird shifts I've seen happen in reading old literature and during my career, where big shifts in who is being cited will happen for quixotic social reasons. Usually it's basically politics or ignorance of big parts of a field, who will get introduced to an idea by a particular author or group. Lots of chaotic citation patterns and feedback loops.
Add in shifts in what's motivating grant and paper topics and it really damages authentic scientific discourse. So much is driven by looking like a brilliant scientist and not by scientific progress. People aren't dumb either and they are very very good at looking like brilliant scientists.