Unease about publishing

Say there's someone online or in the media whose way of thinking you really like — but who sometimes feels a bit too sarcastic or too definitive.
In many cases, if you actually talk to them, they're humble, not arrogant at all, and communicate carefully.

So what was that unease you felt at first? Coincidence?

Maybe it was mood that day, or something unpleasant happened on a day they said something slightly off.
I've been thinking lately about other causes.
Especially: where do people of that type differ from me?

It's probably not skill at communication, but a difference in how they think.

After turning it over, I landed on something like this.

Call the publisher [A].
When A publishes, there's an assumed [reader B].
B likes A's thinking and enjoys A's posts.
And B, more or less, resonates not only with individual posts but with A's consistent character.

There's another role: [reader C].
C has no special attachment to A's thinking.
C looks at a particular post of A's and finds parts that rub them the wrong way.
Then C may point out contradictions in A, or criticize.

But A is publishing for B, not for C.

If A decides C doesn't need to be reached, there are two approaches:
① Keep delivering to B, while putting in a nuance that pushes C out
② Also keep C in mind, and use softer wording or disclaimers
(Setting aside actions aimed at C, like blocking. And this isn't about how to deal with haters or whether you care about them — it's about why publishing styles differ.)

Either way, A is still writing for B; even if the method changes, the shift is fine-grained.

The people in the opening example, I think, take approach ①.
And as readers of this blog will notice, I lean toward ②.
I do ② only because it fits how I think. Anyway, this blog doesn't get enough views for many C-type readers to appear. And even with ②, C shrinks compared with ①, but never hits zero.

Approach ① seems highly rational. No problem with it.
The unease from the opening, though, is probably that "nuance that pushes C out."

① Keep delivering to B, while putting in a nuance that pushes C out

You can call that nuance part of the publisher's character — but for B it isn't required; it can even create unease if it's there.
The same goes for ②: B only needs the core ideas; soft wording and disclaimers aren't necessary. (I believe those softeners raise how accurately the content lands — but for B, they'd get it without them.)

With either ① or ②, the moment you publish you're taking a position, so C showing up is inevitable. How you frame C is what produces differences in style — I've been finding that interesting lately.