That seems like a semantic distinction only. Extolling the benefits of something is not advocacy, at least not how I understand the term advocacy. Advocacy means representing a normative view of what ought to be the case, and suggesting that others should take certain actions. It necessarily requires an aspect of asserting a moral stance about the rightness or wrongness of adopting or failing to adopt certain actions.
The semantics matter because of subjective interpretation. "I think" and "should" and "the majority of subgroup x" are not usually correlated to be the same thing, even though they seem like "semantics". The first is clear (why do you think that?, is rarely asked), the second undefined (should doesn't have a qualification) and the third subject to investigation (based on what evidence?).
I have found that morality is less often an influential factor (spaces vs tabs, fight) than the words like "should" and "ought" are used. YMMV
