Once upon a time, writers would spell-out such terms as Exempli gratia (e.g.), Id est (i.e.), Et cetera (etc.). Now, the abbreviation of those terms is jargon so common that to spell-out them would jar most readers. Jargon, i.e. special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand (e.g. exempli gratia), is virtually always popular — as long as it is coherent (alaiic) — inasmuch as it can save a lot of time — again, alaiic. Thus, jargon necessarily thrives or dives not by any loftily wimpered degree — but rather by its utility or lack thereof, i.e. the alaiic part.
Yet many a fading gatekeeper of culture (fgkc), especially in academia, loathe freshness and vigor to such a downright counterproductive degree — that they simply refuse to acknowledge the utility of up-and-coming jargon, e.g. so-called text-talk: u (you), ur (your), idc (I don’t care), idk (I don’t know), ttyl (talk to you later), etc (et cetera).
The simplest, humanest, humblest, effectivest way to bridge the gap between old-school and new-school would be to instruct the latter more fully in the clear and easy academic standard for introducing an acronym (acry) or abbreviation (abbr). Thereafter, whenever the writer wanted to use the given acry, e.g. acry or abbr — they would simply need to explain themselves ahead of time to u, the reader, to ensure ur ability to follow along.
Hence, the new-age jargonist would raise or fall by their merits or lack thereof, not by the indiscriminate discretion of discrete academic elites, who are too often too far-removed from reality — those specialized to a retarding degree, who are anything but teachers proper, instead, again: Only fgkc.
For now, the imaginary gap — of improper vs proper — between new circles and old squares shall persist, at least until the real gap ends: Pedantry vs Logic.