> The thought that anyone would want to read what you have to say alone is ego.

I hope that was a generic "you" and not intended as an insult. In any case, it's untrue except for a definition of "ego" so expansive as to be meaningless. Is it ego to believe that some subset of people you already know and have some affinity with might derive some benefit or enjoyment from something you write? For many bloggers the mere possibility of that is sufficient to put the writing in a public place instead of a private diary, but they'd also be quite content if that didn't happen.

I'm trying hard not to be as derogatory as you are with your implication that others are thin-skinned or egotistical, but I suspect that this goalpost-moving on "ego" reflects your own motivations more than any general reality. So does the "weirdness" you mention. Perhaps you should consider that other people are motivated differently than you are and that's OK. There's nothing weird or egotistical at all about wanting to communicate with others in a non-transactional way, for its own sake.