Good question. Feels like there's two Qs in there: 1) when is long-form better than short form, 2) why write about problems at all?
2. Why write at all: consensus drives policy change, and information drives consensus. Writing, of any length, assembles information, bundles it into an argument, and (if the argument lands) becomes a 'capsule' around which consensus can form.
1. Why long form: room for nuance and research. Long form can include different perspectives (including stripe's -- perhaps they have a reason for these practices). It can address questions like 'what % of the industry behaves this way, what are the downsides to the banks' approach'. The interview + editing process can tease out anecdotes that sharpen the argument, or uncover new aspects of the problem.
This part is selfish, but for the writer, long form lets you improve your own knowledge of the topic, and your ability to make arguments around it.
Ok, I thought you meant publishing the same text as in the comment, but as a blog post. So what you actually meant was “please expand on this in longer form”. So “blog” not necessarily as a publishing medium, but as a genre of text.
2. Why write at all: consensus drives policy change, and information drives consensus. Writing, of any length, assembles information, bundles it into an argument, and (if the argument lands) becomes a 'capsule' around which consensus can form.
1. Why long form: room for nuance and research. Long form can include different perspectives (including stripe's -- perhaps they have a reason for these practices). It can address questions like 'what % of the industry behaves this way, what are the downsides to the banks' approach'. The interview + editing process can tease out anecdotes that sharpen the argument, or uncover new aspects of the problem.
This part is selfish, but for the writer, long form lets you improve your own knowledge of the topic, and your ability to make arguments around it.