How to write a factually dubious but potent blog post

I’m referring to this article about… well, what exactly it’s about I’m not sure, but it’s a superlative 167 words.

9 killer techniques in 167 words (91 fewer than I could manage talking about it):

• Contentious title and opening. Your first reaction when you read it? Probably Never!
• Short, active sentences and paragraphs.
• Reference to powerful, controversial brand names (the library world both admires and fears Amazon and Google).
• Judicious use of ‘we’.
• Facts and figures (£1000 million).
• A triple (politicians, council officers and library professionals).
• Emotive language (lunacy, deserves to be shut down).
• A counter example (America).
• A call to action (we should stop it).

Unsurprisingly, several people commented.

But read it again, and a few gaps appear:

• Legal tax evasion is an oxymoron that comes from the writer’s attempt to resolve several contradictory ideas. Should Google and Amazon be allowed to dodge tax – not that they did dodge tax, of course – in order to save taxpayers money?
• The America example is intriguing but not outlined in any detail at all.
• In the same vein, how has Google provided a better information service? One sentence would do.
• Churches weren’t built for meeting in; they were built for praying in. It’s a bad example but not surprising because there simply isn’t another space that fulfils the same civic function as a library.

I love this style of writing, and it sharpens up your thinking even if you don’t agree with the opinion it expresses. But just a little detail would make it less easy to dismiss after a second reading.