Something about communication styles that's just struck me.
There are some people who, when you meet them in real life, or just listen to them talk, are fantastic, compelling speakers, a little old-school, but you can tell that they ply an honest trade.
Separately, there are also websites on the internet that look very Web 1.0, with hokey-looking content, kitschy graphics, with passages of word vomit on every page—not something you'd usually take to be an Upstanding Institution of the Modern Web, regardless of any actual credibility.
Well, I just realised that some of these websites come from those exact aforementioned old-timers who are probably much more attuned to the customs of speaking than to the customs of writing (or the customs of the internet in the 21st century). Some of the same things that make people engaging and trusted speakers have the exact opposite effect when you try to transcribe it directly onto the page, physical or digital—and vice versa.
Some media studies scholars have called the era of the internet Orality 2.0 (vs Orality 1.0, followed by Literacy), due to the resurgent ephemerality of the contents of the internet. But here, just because the message is again ephemeral doesn't mean that the medium of its transmission, the feeling sense with which we perceive it, and ultimately, the culture surrounding the medium ceases to matter.
(For context and posterity, I first heard David Morgan on the Rewild Yourself podcast, and then went to look his websites up.)