This is a great response; you clearly have a lot of thoughts on this topic and have taken the time to lay them all out, and recognize the nuance inherent in the topic (a quality I believe almost all topics have, and which I appreciate the recognition of). So thank you for taking the time to type this all out and throw in all your cents.

It's those who crave popularity more than they crave decency or high moral standing

I would add to this. It's those that crave popularity over quality; it's also those that crave positive feedback over honest, valuable critique; it's those that crave attention from any audience as opposed to trying to discern the difference between fawning, uneducated responses and the people with the education, or enthusiasm, or intelligence, to actually appreciate the quality of what they are seeing/reading/experiencing. I think there are people that fall into each of these categories separately and people who combine elements as well. In short I think that my issue is that many people seem to seek an audience and popularity because they want praise as opposed to because they want to spread value. Of course, it is very easy and probably ubiquitous for people to put themselves or their art out in public because they seek a combination of both factors.

I think that my problem with the situation is that it is also very easy to expect and only want positive feedback. The more positive feedback you get the better you may think that you are, and also, the more you want of it. I think it becomes very easy to be "spoiled" in a way with feedback; once you get enough positive responses I think it is so easy to begin to think all those responses are well-grounded (see my third category) that constructive, educated, but not adulatory responses may get dismissed or ignored.

I do agree that when others enjoy our work it feels more meaningful. I can't deny that and I have to say I appreciate you gently correcting me on that point. I work very hard to get poems published, and it's not just because publication means something to others (though it often feels like that is the main point). It is because I do want to be read. Even just the fact that editors read my work, though they reject it, is something. I try to include a line in my submissions thanking the editors for the time they invest in me and my work just by reading it. Because it is something. I am read, even if it's by people who reject me. Someone has seen my work.

I think my issue mainly stems from those people who are willing to bend, sacrifice their original ideas or intentions, and significantly alter or change themselves just for others' praise. I think it's very easy to fall that way. I also think that when people are used to being loved it becomes very hard to accept being disliked or hated. So I think if you are used to putting things out there that get a very positive reaction, and then you try something different that gets a negative reaction, it's very natural and easy to try and tweak it back to a thing that elicits a positive reaction, even without consciously realizing it.

I think everyone should experience apathy and negative reactions. To not experience these I think is to experience a false reality. At least, a supremely unusual one.

I often ask myself, what did I do to deserve a large audience? What do I do now?

I don't believe my writing, blogs poetry etc, has a large audience, and I think it's better to believe that than, falsely, that I have a large sphere of influence or impact. I'd rather believe I am read by fewer people than more that don't really exist. I try to be humble - and, I think, thereby realistic.