I don't get the impression that this was written with everyman in mind. The "someone new" won't understand the plausibility therein; better to appeal to the influencers that do.
> I mean, if you're only writing for people who already agree with you, why bother at all?
To give those people, who may not be articulate or knowledgeable enough to explain the intricacies of a problem, the capacity to argue for or against a point when engaged in conversation.
For example, there are people who are against behavioural advertising but they may not be able to cite specific examples of how it’s harmful, or how much, or to whom. Thus they would research those questions and make a post so others in similar situations are able to have informed discussions with those in their lives who don’t think behavioural advertising is a big deal.
Okay, but it could do that more effectively if they picked better events for their timeline.
I feel like the article, as it stands, basically only works on the basis of "the boiling frog of digital freedom" as a concept that people already feel is happening. Unfortunately, the actual details are poorly chosen—which don't matter if you're already bought into the concept, but are imperative otherwise.
My answer was more about the general reason to do it. I agree in the specific instance of this article, which is why I gave a different example. I meant to point that out in the original post.
