Types of Internet-fuelled democratization of information sharing

We often hear claims that the Internet has allowed for the democratization of information. But the Internet has democratized different types of information, and these different democratizations have different effects. We should note the difference between the democratization of (the sharing of) facts and the democratization of (the sharing of) opinions. (The democratization of access to facts and opinions is mostly a good thing, since it allows people to have more information to evaluate and more arguments to consider.)

The democratization of facts allows anyone to share eir version of real events. In many salient cases, this is a bad thing, because it allows the disproportionate amplification of fringe and often false claims in cases where the dominant/authority-promoted narrative is correct—see, for instance, discussion around social media sites’ / YouTube’s amplification and handling of various conspiracy theories. However, in cases where there’s censorship or societal silence around an issue, the democratization of facts can be beneficial by introducing a silenced or lesser-known narrative—e.g., citizen-journalism videos of police misconduct. (This gets more complicated if “evidence” is faked, e.g., false testimony, deepfakes, or even is simply a biased or poorly remembered version of events.)

The democratization of opinions allows anyone to share eir thoughts, interpretations, and analysis of ideas or events. In many salient cases, this is a good thing, because it allows the voices of groups which were previously marginalized or have less influence on the media, whether for identity or social status reasons (although that’s not to say that the Internet is a total meritocracy). However, this allows new mass movements to emerge, which isn’t always a good thing, since inaccurate/harmful opinions can gain traction among the populace and negatively influence society (e.g., certain cancellation campaigns).