I don't get why people are arguing so much about this. Both sides, offense and defense, have been trying to bait the other side into a penalty since the beginning of football time.
The offense tries to simulate a snap to draw the defense offsides. The defense tries to scare the offense into a false start.
The rule may have been changed to allow for "safety" of the offense, but the purpose was to not penalize an offensive player if a defender illegally (ie, by entering the neutral zone) caused them to flinch. By flinching, the play is immediately ruled dead because of a false start. But if the defender illegally "induced" them to flinch, then it should be a penalty on the defense. Just bear in mind that it would have to be an illegal inducement; that is, the defender doing something potentially illegal (entering the neutral zone) to cause the false start. If he wasn't in the neutral zone, it's always called a false start on the offense.
So all we're seeing now is a consequence of the "false start" rule and the "safety" rule together. Offensive coaches figured out that if a defender jumps the gun and enters the neutral zone, all you have to do is purposely false start, which immediately stops the play, and the ruling will always be a penalty on the defense for a neutral zone infraction and "inducing" them to false start through an illegal jump.
I think it's more the consequence of the above than really a rule change per se.