1. I think it is completely fair to use mason and Freemason interchangeably. For one thing, this concept is already present in the language informally. Most people, when hearing mason, think of the craft. Further, Masons, in the understanding of builders and personal stone worker, are today relatively few in number. Indeed, Donald Trump was the force behind Trump Tower, but I would hardly consider him an operative mason. Even construction workers do not often work with stone building implements directly. Third, we can take a lesson from grammar here, as auxiliary groups (SR, Shrine, etc) are properly called Masonic bodies, and makes no distinction between Masonic or Freemasonic.
2. In another post on this thread, you cite freemasonry as a theatrical group, with somewhat convoluted secondary clauses. To water-down freemasonry as a theatrical troupe that can only appeal a sub-set "target market" is too simplistic to capture what freemasonry is. I doubt that when HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent was initiated, he did so to be a royal patron of a troupe of thespians.