- free data (not locked by proprietary systems like Word) - ability to diff, search easily - ability to quickly refactor (biggest one for me) of not just content but markup too!

Now readability is subjective plus if you know what you are reading.

If you know Org markup, reading even raw Org will be easy. If you know Markdown, reading Markdown will be easy. If you don't know Org, you might think that the headings look like bullets. But that just because you don't know it not because if is less 'readable'.

I linked the raw Org earlier. Here is the Markdown conversion of the the same Org source: https://gitlab.com/kaushalmodi/kaushalmodi.gitlab.io/raw/mas...

To a Markdown-untrained eye, that wouldn't look too "readable".

Now of course, if you use a good editor that allows folding of headings, optional hiding of markup, coloring code blocks in the right syntax, etc, that definitely becomes more readable than raw. The same applies to Markdown.

It's basically -- Pick the right tool to make the experience more pleasant. But even if you use a wrong tool, plaintext content will allow you to get the job done. It's your choosing.

So as I mentioned earlier, "readability" is a perception, subjective to each individual. Based on their experience with plaintext, Org or Markdown "readability" can change. But the plusses of plaintext I mentioned in the very beginning stay unaffected by that.