It may be just text, but the points being made are technical, and the blog's author is an expert.
The author of the paper is now in a position where they feel like they have to defend themselves publicly, and I don't think this is the forum for a scientific defense (for the three reasons I listed above).
>The author of the paper is now in a position where they feel they have to defend themselves publicly
Due in large part to the fact that his paper was attached to a press release from Oxford--a point of contention for both Hossenfelder and Sean Carroll.
If paper in question becomes fodder for the mainstream media (or at least the mainstream scientific media) then there is no reason why they should not have to defend their theory/arguments/speculations publicly in a less than formal peer reviewed forum, especially one of fairly high regard in that subject area.
Disagree. As just one example, the Solvay conferences of the 1910s-20s. Much of QM was developed by informal discussions, both written and verbal.
Likewise, most of the initial challenges to scientific papers/theories/experimental results happens informally and only later will there be a peer reviewed counter (if the original has not between withdrawn or modified before). Reference the OPERA ftl neutrinos for a recent example.
I think it's reasonable for experts to publicly explain their opinions on news in their field to a lay audience. Obviously this is not where rigorous scientific arguments between experts should be made.
The author of the paper is now in a position where they feel like they have to defend themselves publicly, and I don't think this is the forum for a scientific defense (for the three reasons I listed above).