I honestly never cared for Hossenfelder's science communication. She's far too dismissive and dishonest in representing theoretical views she disagrees with. And I don't necessarily have the physics understanding to pick these biases out too easily.
I think Sean Carroll for instance does a much better job at this when he interviews people whose views he disagrees with in his podcasts, which happens quite frequently.
I enjoy it. There are a lot of communicators who shy away from giving their own opinion about anything that isn't the overwhelming consensus. They might be wrong after all. It is refreshing to have somebody actually disagree with something and then back it up.
It depends on what you mean by "back it up", especially regarding rigor. The more "surprising"/disagreeable an idea is, the more rigor we (or at least I) expect of the arguments.
agree but be aware carroll swings way way way way to the other extreme especially about the pet theories he happens to like: multiverses ; the everett interpretation of qm ;boltzmann's brains and so on
Yes, he's opinionated. But he regularly interviews people who disagree with him and does a good job at both asking them hard questions and helping them explain their own view. And when he does agree with them, I think he does a decent job at playing devil's advocate and challenging their position.
I think Sean Carroll for instance does a much better job at this when he interviews people whose views he disagrees with in his podcasts, which happens quite frequently.