It is pretty interesting that everyone addressed my secondary points while ignoring the more important:
There are too few alternatives, so even though there may not be much confusion in context, the first thing that springs to mind is not likely to be correct, which brings you to a screeching halt while you think about it – like a confusing mis-spelling of a word.
As I wrote, the problem isn't confusion in context; it is that most short acronyms will interfere with your reception of the information while you parse it - unless you are deeply into the narrow context being discussed. Also there will be less difficulty if there are no similar acronyms from fields you are more familiar with.
And there is no evidence that texting has anything to do with it, it seems to be more driven by the "baffle them with bullshit" mode of bureaucracy, since it has been mostly spreading outwards from gov't since the 1970s.
since it has been mostly spreading outwards from gov't since the 1970s
Any evidence for this?
I posted this in the comments at Eric Raymond's blog:
Then I realized some here may find it useful.
Extensive use of abbreviations and acronyms was primarily a convenience for writers, when writing was done by hand and then by typewriter, there is less justification for it now when most writing is done by computer. And as my comment points out it is usually a negative for readers. It does benefit readers when you can convert a long phrase into a readable word, SCUBA and LASER spring to mind, but that doesn't occur often.