I think this is something worth discussing. There was a similar thread a while ago in /r/conlangs discussing the same topic for auxlangs.

Here are a few of the comments that are particularly relevant in our case, and ways we might try to fix them.

/u/wmblathers:

…there is an air of non-ironic enthusiasm that can surround auxlangs, and that is simply uncool. (Note: that was sarcasm.) The goals of auxlangs seem naive to a lot of people these days…

That one's not really easy, though perhaps it'd be nice if the conlanging community didn't heavily downvote enthusiastic newcomers as often as I've seen.

/u/CrashWho:

…I think it has more to do with the stereotype of the auxlanger. Below is kind of what they're viewed like.

Hey guys. I just created a new auxlang. It's super easy to learn, easier than any natlang. It doesn't matter what your native language is, it's a neutral language with no bias and is just as easy for everyone to learn. By the way my auxlang is superior to all auxlangs. Learning it improves your ability to learn other languages.

And when no one learns it:

I put all this work into an auxlang and people refuse to see my brilliance. Last time I make that mistake.

And then two weeks later:

Hey guys, look at this new, superior auxlang 2.0 I devised. It solves all the problems of the last one and is superior to all languages in all ways. I am practically the God of languages. I know what is most logical in a language and what is a fool's construction.

I think the best way to address this would be to provide resources for newcomers so that they can quickly get a better understanding of techniques that work and those that don't.

/u/alynnidalar:

To add to this, it's painfully obvious from the posts of a lot of very new auxlangers that they have literally never read anything on the subject before. In some cases, they don't even seem to know that auxlangs are a thing--they act like they're the first person to ever have come up with the idea of a "simplified" language (a meaningless concept, if we're talking about a language someone is expected to learn as their first language) that borrows vocabulary from Romance languages.

Emphasis added.

This attitude in particular is an obstacle to minlangs, since it draws on certain common impressions about how language works. However, all languages carry a degree of complexity that determines how easily certain ideas can be expressed. This is apparent in all the language mistakes children make learning all the exceptions of their first language (and subsequent ones for that matter). There is no reason to suggest that this complexity is the same for all possible languages, particularly in the case of languages that remove as much of this irregularity as possible. It is also unreasonable to expect that language evolution can simplify languages beyond a certain point, as it takes more of a form of compounded shortcuts without any active attempt to reconcile them with a larger picture.

What other aspects of this problem are there?