First of all, thanks for the interesting outlook, it gave something to think about!

In general, I don’t like thinking in absolutes. It’s not like everyone will read the article or everyone won’t, some people will and some won’t.

There it helps me to break down to more categories:

1. People that will read the article, understand it, and have critical thoughts to share.
2. People that will read the article, understand it, but won’t have anything to add or critize.
3. People that will read the article, but won’t understand it.
4. People that won’t read the article, but would if something caught their attention (like a question on the comments).
5. People that won’t read the article, but would read the comments.
6. People that won’t read the article, but will comment something interesting about the title or the discussions in the comments.
7. People that won’t interact with the post at all.
8. Other possible categories I haven’t considered.

The telephone game is really helpful to understand how interactions between people of the categories above will go. However, keep in mind that the goal is not necessarily 100% accurate transmission of the author’s message. On the contrary, it’s possible people are looking for different interpretations, relevant information, criticism, and/or a laugh.

Personally, I really like it when people provide quotes they find interesting along with their own analysis. An example would be:

To allow? What? Was Australia requiring/forcing everyone to answer calls from bosses at all hours?

Australia will introduce laws giving workers the right to ignore unreasonable calls and messages from their bosses outside of work hours without penalty, with potential fines for employers that breach the rule.

So you cannot be fired anymore for not answering your boss’s 2AM call. It nice to make to make progress, but the bar is so low it’s a tavern in Hades…