Putting all the blame on the author is oversimplifying things. Yes the introduction and title could be made better, but that's not an excuse to interpret the post in a way the author obviously didn't intend it to be interpreted.
But the author is just one person. If that author learned to structure their work better they can singlehandedly improve the comprehension of across the entire mass of readers.
If you're communicating to the masses and they're not getting it, it's your fault. It may not be 100% true, but it's 100% useful to think of things that way.
Some authors are hard to understand, but the message they are trying to convey could be worth extracting.
As a reader it is preferable for you to be able to extract value out of opaque text. The author owes you nothing. And, presumably you are reading because you think there might be something of value underneath.
If you fail to capture that value (If there is any) that's your loss, not the author's.
Certainly, it would be best if the message were communicated in such a fashion that people would not misunderstand it to begin with. But if, and when things are poorly communicated, if you misunderstand the underlying message the person taking a loss is not the author, but you.
To think otherwise would be to focus too deeply on some sort of exposure, or monetary loss on the part of the author, rather than the failure to capture a nugget of wisdom that might be of utility to your life.