Let me post an original comment here, since this was apparently divisive.
When communicating orally or through writing (especially regarding topics that lean towards activism, philosophy, politics), you need to understand:
your audience as well as their expectations (this can include point of views on the topic, grammar, punctuation, tone, etc. Yes, that includes now-alienating punctuation like em dashes or flagrant disrespect for graceful degradation of your blog)
your own voice (pretty much the same as above, but your version of it)
how to bridge 1 and 2 (this is sometimes called “meeting people where they are”)
when to challenge audience expectations.
when to have your expectations challenged.
It is essentially a game of tango.
Let me give you an example.
A year ago I started a blog on FOSS and setting up homelabs (not linking to it on this account). A friend of mine was supportive, although he had no idea what FOSS was. He was using pretty much all of the big tech services you could think of.
That said, I still took time to hear him out. I didn’t make fun of him when he complained about Spotify’s price increases, or shows being pulled from Netflix, and other shitty practices. I understood where he was coming from: most of these services have high advertising budgets and so in most cases this is all he knew.
Once I realized where he was coming from, I explained what FOSS was in terms he would understand, and in ways that just about anyone would appreciate. What was the result? Nowadays he is a user in my homelab and he gives regular feedback on my blog. Furthermore, this discussion directed some of my earlier articles, giving them a much appreciated conversational tone. This was a excellent end result that could only have been reached by balancing idealism with pragmatism.
My main point is: you need to understand and play this game of tango. If you don’t, you risk alienating your audience without ever having the opportunity to challenge them (and them challenging you). As an example, look at people in this thread who didn’t even read the article due to the author’s brazen use of AI; it went entirely against their expectations, so a discussion was never had with the author and his topics.
Edit: spelling, grammar, and mention of blog presentation
Let me post an original comment here, since this was apparently divisive.
When communicating orally or through writing (especially regarding topics that lean towards activism, philosophy, politics), you need to understand:
It is essentially a game of tango.
Let me give you an example.
A year ago I started a blog on FOSS and setting up homelabs (not linking to it on this account). A friend of mine was supportive, although he had no idea what FOSS was. He was using pretty much all of the big tech services you could think of.
That said, I still took time to hear him out. I didn’t make fun of him when he complained about Spotify’s price increases, or shows being pulled from Netflix, and other shitty practices. I understood where he was coming from: most of these services have high advertising budgets and so in most cases this is all he knew.
Once I realized where he was coming from, I explained what FOSS was in terms he would understand, and in ways that just about anyone would appreciate. What was the result? Nowadays he is a user in my homelab and he gives regular feedback on my blog. Furthermore, this discussion directed some of my earlier articles, giving them a much appreciated conversational tone. This was a excellent end result that could only have been reached by balancing idealism with pragmatism.
My main point is: you need to understand and play this game of tango. If you don’t, you risk alienating your audience without ever having the opportunity to challenge them (and them challenging you). As an example, look at people in this thread who didn’t even read the article due to the author’s brazen use of AI; it went entirely against their expectations, so a discussion was never had with the author and his topics.
Edit: spelling, grammar, and mention of blog presentation