The Perils Of The Democratisation Of The Internet & The Rise Of The 'Expert' Commentator

[Zographos]

This is something I have noticed since the prophetic year of 2020 and the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic in particular. It has continued unabated into 2024 and will no doubt most likely stretch out until the crack of doom given the ever increasing information technology revolution that is still ongoing. To sum it up in a simple phrase, it would be "Everyone's an expert nowadays." The democratisation of the rollout of the internet worldwide, the advent of smartphones we can hold in the palm of our hands and the dissemination of information via the relatively new phenomenon of social media have all combined top create a perfect storm of misinformation, "expert" opinion, wildcat conspiracy theories, AI fakery etc. I know that the Internet is largely still governed by the law of the jungle and that despite new legislation like the Online Safety Act 2023 in the UK and the existing defamation laws there is still a problem with anonymous people sharing disinformation, propaganda and the purest libel worldwide. It's very difficult for individual sties, social media companies etc. to govern and police everything that is posted, shared and uploaded to the internet, to say nothing of the nefarious activities on the Dark Web. I think we have arrived in this unenvious position of the writ of the internet run wild due to the democratising effects of internet accessibility even in the farthest corners of the globe. The internet is a great Leveller and that can be both a blessing and a curse. There are pros and cons, just like anything else.

In the UK context the Iraq War of 2003, the Great Recession of 2007-2009, the MPs' Expenses Scandal of 2009, Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, Partygate, the rise of ring-wing populism and 40-year-high inflation and a cost of living crisis have no doubt all played a part in stripping away respect and faith in politicians, institutions, the monarchy, the Establishment and elites, the world of finance, medicine and so on. It's all part of a slow drift in society from perhaps the time of the Profumo Scandal in 1963 onwards that has seen as increasingly dangerous cynicism and world-weariness with authority figures and the mainstream media which is increasingly viewed as their puppet and official mouthpiece a la Joseph Goebbels' control of the press in Nazi Germany. Did the rot of public distrust in the UK Government perhaps even set in earlier than that during the Suez Crisis of 1956? In 2023 in the UK, as one recent example, the mass speculation about the disappearance of the tragic Nicola Bulley and all the various true crime documentary inspired theories about her "murder", "kidnap" and other unfounded and malicious rumours perfectly illustrates where we are nowadays in terms of the democratisation of news delivery. We have seen a shift away from traditional formerly trusted media sources like the BBC or ITV and a move towards TikTok etc. and influencers and commentators on social media, particularly amongst the young. You could say that Dr Google and his ilk cures all ills or at least "he" gives that false impression...

So what do we think of these musings of mine? Do you agreed, disagree or are you indifferent to the seemingly inevitable decline towards a lowest common denominator form of the internet?

 

[Steven]

Ironically, I don't think I'm qualified to take on the topic of the states of the nation(s). And so, instead...

Many of us will have our own, personal hobby-horses regarding this subject, I'm sure; mine is centred on the Nicola Bulley disappearance you mentioned. Undoubtedly, there were many people genuinely trying to help; equally, there were many who simply saw this tragedy as a ready means of fulfilling the fantasy of playing detective; far worse than both, I suspect that, for a few, a 'missing female' case in which they strive to play a part presents a vicarious and sinister thrill...like an unsuspected murderer feels when attending the scene of their crime (in public or private). It's a kind of ownership of a woman, and this sort of horrible rubbish satisfies their grotesque egos and joyless desires. I really doubt that, had the missing person been male, so many people would have flocked to the scene or got involved at all.

 

[Ascalon]

@Zographos all fair points, and reasonably argued.
However, as someone who has been involved in the world of IT and tech into my third decade now, I would take exception to one point:

"It's very difficult for individual sites, social media companies etc. to govern and police everything that is posted, shared and uploaded to the internet"

This is demonstrably not the case.

Major sites such as the big social media platforms, but also commercial ones like Amazon, Google, etc, not only have the capability, but already have the mechanisms and the capacity in place to observe, monitor, and police content - look at what they do with targeted advertising and profiling.

It is simply not in their interest to police any more specifically than they are absolutely force to do by lax regulation and even poorer enforcement of same.

Twitter is a classic example.

They don't do it because they don't want to. That's it.

 

[Tunn11]

As a professional librarian I was trained to evaluate information. I've posted a few times here, and probably bored everyone silly about how difficult it is to evaluate most websites. The basics that you would get with a book (Date, Author, Publisher, etc.) are generally not available. That can be overcome if webpage authors include that data.

This isn't to say that books and other media could not suffer the same problems and I have posted examples where they did, but they are not as immediate as 24/7 at your fingertips "information".

The only solution that I can see is for the education system to start educating children and adults in the proper methods of evaluating the information they are receiving. A few decades ago there were people who really believed that you couldn't write something in a book unless it was true. There are now people who believe that they don't need any other source of information than google (They are not even aware of other search engines) Most searchers won't move beyond the first hit, usually sponsored, or the first page of results.

If I'd had a query on the dangers of smoking and had given them a pamphlet written by a doctor employed by the tobacco industry most would not have been happy, but many will accept a webpage written by God knows who and not knowing when they wrote it. Ideally I would have given them that pamphlet as well giving information provided by the BMA or equivalent and told them "Here are the opposing views on the subject."

The internet is great for providing up to date information that was difficult to track or was already out of date in printed sources; Deaths, telephone numbers, directories, up to date mapping (NB the date of publication of an atlas isn't necessarily the date of the maps in it) But even that advantage is lost if no one updates their webpage or at least tells you when it was last updated. However if you want to know about the quality of Shardonnay's burger where else would you look?

 

[Stormkhan]

My opinion is, like me, simplistic.
The explosion of the internet and worldwide near-instant communication is. It just is. It's a tool, a weapon, a society in itself.
However, the world itself has always had its good and bad people, liars and prophets, sinister criminals, benevolent and malevolent governments. long ago we had a few people who could read and told selected people who couldn't what they'd read. Interpretation, truth or lie.
The explosion of worldwide communication has enabled everyone on an exponential scale. I'm not convinced it's increased the levels of crazy; I think it's made the crazies more noticable and, therefore, able to pick up more crazy supporters.
Like developments in photography, video creation, computers - it can fine-tune and build on past 'successes' but it's also gold dust to the crazies. They don't want to use it to prove truth, they want it to create doubt.

 

[What Tyler]

If the moderators can allow this - please forgive me, it is not my intention to point ever so slightly toward 'politics'...
but i liken the 'democratisation' of the internet, as the same as Proportional Representation; if you give everybody an equal value vote, or an equally wide reaching way of expressing an opinion it will inevitably bring out extreme views; but like it or not it gives a much more accurate picture of what and how people think and see the World, and reflects their prejudices, fears, hopes, and ignorance- and only when we recognise those things, bring them out into the light as it were, can we start to improve, and become 'better'

 

[kesavaross]

This is something I have noticed since the prophetic year of 2020 and the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic in particular. It has continued unabated into 2024 and will no doubt most likely stretch out until the crack of doom given the ever increasing information technology revolution that is still ongoing. To sum it up in a simple phrase, it would be "Everyone's an expert nowadays." The democratisation of the rollout of the internet worldwide, the advent of smartphones we can hold in the palm of our hands and the dissemination of information via the relatively new phenomenon of social media have all combined top create a perfect storm of misinformation, "expert" opinion, wildcat conspiracy theories, AI fakery etc. I know that the Internet is largely still governed by the law of the jungle and that despite new legislation like the Online Safety Act 2023 in the UK and the existing defamation laws there is still a problem with anonymous people sharing disinformation, propaganda and the purest libel worldwide. It's very difficult for individual sties, social media companies etc. to govern and police everything that is posted, shared and uploaded to the internet, to say nothing of the nefarious activities on the Dark Web. I think we have arrived in this unenvious position of the writ of the internet run wild due to the democratising effects of internet accessibility even in the farthest corners of the globe. The internet is a great Leveller and that can be both a blessing and a curse. There are pros and cons, just like anything else.

In the UK context the Iraq War of 2003, the Great Recession of 2007-2009, the MPs' Expenses Scandal of 2009, Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, Partygate, the rise of ring-wing populism and 40-year-high inflation and a cost of living crisis have no doubt all played a part in stripping away respect and faith in politicians, institutions, the monarchy, the Establishment and elites, the world of finance, medicine and so on. It's all part of a slow drift in society from perhaps the time of the Profumo Scandal in 1963 onwards that has seen as increasingly dangerous cynicism and world-weariness with authority figures and the mainstream media which is increasingly viewed as their puppet and official mouthpiece a la Joseph Goebbels' control of the press in Nazi Germany. Did the rot of public distrust in the UK Government perhaps even set in earlier than that during the Suez Crisis of 1956? In 2023 in the UK, as one recent example, the mass speculation about the disappearance of the tragic Nicola Bulley and all the various true crime documentary inspired theories about her "murder", "kidnap" and other unfounded and malicious rumours perfectly illustrates where we are nowadays in terms of the democratisation of news delivery. We have seen a shift away from traditional formerly trusted media sources like the BBC or ITV and a move towards TikTok etc. and influencers and commentators on social media, particularly amongst the young. You could say that Dr Google and his ilk cures all ills or at least "he" gives that false impression...

So what do we think of these musings of mine? Do you agreed, disagree or are you indifferent to the seemingly inevitable decline towards a lowest common denominator form of the internet?

I pretty much agree with that apart from the 'nefarious dark web'. True, there is some nasty stuff on there but it is extremely hard to find (not that I've tried'). I've never come across anything 'nefarious' or nasty even once. What there is on the dark web is a lot of information that companies like Google cannot censor. I use the dark web a lot to look into stuff. It's amazing just how much information there is out there that would never see the light of day on the ordinary internet.

 

[sdoig]

If the moderators can allow this - please forgive me, it is not my intention to point ever so slightly toward 'politics'...
but i liken the 'democratisation' of the internet, as the same as Proportional Representation; if you give everybody an equal value vote, or an equally wide reaching way of expressing an opinion it will inevitably bring out extreme views; but like it or not it gives a much more accurate picture of what and how people think and see the World, and reflects their prejudices, fears, hopes, and ignorance- and only when we recognise those things, bring them out into the light as it were, can we start to improve, and become 'better'

Not sure about that myself.

What happens is those who are extremely for or against something voice it loudly online.

The remaining 90% keep quiet and post nothing.

All that's left is the extreme views, not the actual public opinion.

 

[Yithian]

There are a few strands I find interesting here.

The only genuine professional and academic experts paying significant attention to online 'experts' and 'commentators' are those considering them and their pursuits as nice case studies for analyses of the pitfalls of untrammelled communication and the free-flow of ideas, or as the victims of late-stage capitalism; the two groups largely inhabit separate spheres that seldom overlap. When they do overlap—and manage not to talk at cross purposes (both camps have their own jargon)—the resulting exchanges tend to be short and bloody: the online expert is (generally) shown to have gaping holes in his knowledge and be unable to provide support for his positions. The interesting part (although the foregoing can be quite fun) is that the general public is exposed to far more 'experts' than experts, and even without trying very hard will have accumulated a significant body of pseudo-knowledge. The most fascinating cases for a Fortean are those in which the most conditioned subjects attempt to apply this 'knowledge' in the real world: quizzing doctors in clinics, challenging judges about Admiralty Law, shouting down public figures about baby harvesting, and (that old chestnut) demanding corporate accountability from the nineteen-year-old barista in Starbucks—it's fin-de-siècle behaviour arriving just a little overdue. Next step: Morlocks and Eloi!

The other strand is plagiarism. The unspoken secret—at least until very recently—is that huge masses of online 'research' is plagiarised—often from sources that were themselves plagiarised—and with the advent of A.I., it's only going to get much, much worse. I await the inevitable lawsuits with bated badgers, because when the composition of this nebulous 'training data' is revealed, it's going to be a legal bloodbath.

If you haven't seen it, and you have a long time (because there's the mother-of-all twists in the middle), this is just brilliant. The viewing figures alone should tell you he's struck on something vital, but it goes far deeper than the few individuals he exposes and far wider than YouTube.

 

[Stormkhan]

Not sure about that myself.

What happens is those who are extremely for or against something voice it loudly online.

The remaining 90% keep quiet and post nothing.

All that's left is the extreme views, not the actual public opinion.

This is the same in politics, religion ... even the retail sector.
The more 'extreme' or contentious views aren't the most numerous but the most expressed. Bad reviews and service are more frequently expressed - and made widespread - than positive ones. If people are given exactly what they expected then they tend not to exclaim "OMG! I paid for a Double Latte - and I got it right away!"
In politics, this expresses itself in activism; being very vocal in support of a party/politician doesn't indicate actual support.

In general, it's the ones who really, really care that get heard.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Experts aren’t always as neutral as you’d like and many are funded by some body.
How is the average Armchair Warrior armed to compete with bundles of skewed data? How to work out where the truth lies when there’s so much spin and downright manipulation of language and nuance? Well, the Wisdom of Crowds comes to mind.

I’m reminded of The Rutles quote, ‘They grabbed the wrong end of the stick and started beating about the bush with it.

I’m also reminded of The Krells - The extinct race of the planet Altair IV in Forbidden Planet - who created a huge machine to boost their mental powers until it unleashed their subconscious thoughts as an actual physical monster wiping them out as an embodiment of their own malicious and previously hidden darker thoughts.

 

[Stormkhan]

It's good to have diverse opinions on things. Of course, experts too can disagree but that disagreement is based on their experience, conclusions and their own research. This is why 'expert witnesses' can be sought by both prosecution and defence in the same court case.
However, I'd value the opinion of a majority of experts (even if there are dissenting professionals) over someone who agrees with whatever fits in to their own perception.
Example: in UK law, there is 'wriggle room' in some legislation and a judge or jury must opine on the interpretation. Thus, you can have fully qualified barristers commenting on legal issues who don't agree on certain points. However, I'd base my own interpretation on the 'majority view' of legal professionals than some person with no legal experience giving their own opinion no matter how much certainty is used.
Just because a 'majority' reach the same conclusion doesn't make it fact. Just because someone has a counter-conclusion doesn't make them right. And just because someone declares the majority are lying, doesn't make it so.

 

[Tunn11]

For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.

 

[Mythopoeika]

For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.

Also, if you ask 100 people for their opinion on anything, you may get 100 different opinions.

 

[Tunn11]

Also, if you ask 100 people for their opinion on anything, you may get 100 different opinions.

Sometimes more than 100.

 

[Stormkhan]

For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.

And this is why I tend towards consensus opinion.

 

[AnonyJ]

With a real effort not to sound like a bighead(!) I am regarded as somewhat of an 'expert' within my personal and online circles on a couple of rather niche subjects, however I don't feel the need to pontificate online and broadcast that I am. It's a facet of my neuro wiring, and they call on me instead of Google sometimes.

I think the rise of the self-proclaimed expert is a combination of self-delusion [watching a sh*tload of youtube videos doesn't make one a master detective], a craving for 'likes' and 'views' as a form of self-validation, and in some cases just the £££s of being viewed/monetised/booked to be a talking head on many and numerous channels. They obviously don't think (I mean, really examine) the source, agenda and/or political stances of the subject they are gobbing off about.

 

[Stormkhan]

I once said that I would prefer a trained and experienced pilot over someone who'd only played on computer simulators.
It was countered that pilots use simulators.
Yep. But that's only part of years of training they get.

 

[HamandCheeseSandwich]

Did yous see the story of the twos ( I think it was called)… Harry Enfield and Paul White House doing a history of BBC 2.

When it got to the 2000s they did the YOUR RUBBISH, COS IM BETTER THAN YOU sketches. …. With the rise of Simon Cowell, Dragons Den etc. Low level experts like her that looked through peoples turds….

I reckon it’s an extension of this.

 

[Sharon Hill]

A real expert is someone who can recognize the mistakes in a subject/field because they have already made them all.