Once upon a time, becoming an expert in a particular field generally required years of education, training, research, or practical experience. Doctors studied medicine, historians examined historical evidence, mechanics learned how machines operated, and scientists devoted considerable time to testing their theories. Today, however, it sometimes seems that all someone needs to become an authority on virtually any subject is a smartphone, an internet connection, and enough confidence to speak directly into a camera. Scroll through social media for a few minutes and you’ll encounter people offering medical advice, explaining complex political issues, diagnosing psychological conditions, interpreting scientific studies, and providing financial guidance. Some of these individuals possess legitimate qualifications and valuable experience. Others appear to have acquired their expertise from watching a handful of videos and reading a few persuasive headlines. Yet both groups can present their opinions with equal confidence, and audiences may struggle to distinguish between them. An impressive follower count, professional-looking graphics, and a commanding speaking voice can create the appearance of authority without necessarily establishing credibility. This raises an increasingly important question: Has social media made knowledge more accessible, or has it simply made everyone feel qualified to be an expert?
There is no denying that social media has transformed how people access information, and many of those changes have been beneficial. Educational videos can introduce complicated subjects in understandable ways, professionals can share useful insights with audiences who might otherwise never encounter their work, and individuals can discover perspectives beyond their immediate communities. A qualified physician explaining common medical misconceptions, a historian discussing primary sources, or an experienced tradesperson demonstrating a repair can make specialized knowledge more approachable. The difficulty begins when popularity becomes confused with professional competence. According to an October 2026 Pew Research Center report, 59% of American adults say they obtain news from social media at least sometimes. Pew has also found that approximately one in five American adults regularly receive news from social media influencers, with younger adults particularly likely to do so. These findings demonstrate how important online personalities have become in the modern information environment, but they do not establish that those personalities are necessarily reliable or unreliable. An influencer can be exceptionally knowledgeable, just as someone with impressive credentials can make mistakes. The real concern is whether audiences are evaluating the quality of information or allowing presentation, familiarity, and popularity to substitute for evidence. After all, having a million followers doesn’t automatically make someone correct any more than having a small audience makes someone wrong.
Another complication is the extraordinary confidence with which questionable information can be presented. A person who has spent twenty years studying a subject may hesitate before making an absolute statement because they understand its complexity, limitations, and unresolved questions. Meanwhile, someone who encountered the same subject yesterday may announce that they have discovered the truth everyone else has supposedly overlooked. This contrast can make certainty appear more convincing than careful reasoning. Consider the popularity of online psychological advice. Discussions about mental health can reduce stigma, encourage people to seek professional assistance, and help individuals recognize experiences they previously struggled to describe. However, short videos that reduce complicated conditions to a handful of personality traits can also encourage misunderstandings and premature self-diagnosis. Similar problems arise when people offer financial recommendations without explaining risks, discuss scientific findings without understanding research methods, or present historical interpretations without examining reliable sources. Research from the Digital Inquiry Group illustrates how difficult evaluating online information can be. In a national assessment involving 3,446 high school students, many participants struggled to distinguish credible sources from misleading material, and two-thirds failed to recognize sponsored content as advertising in one exercise. Although that study examined students rather than social media users generally, it highlights the importance of skills that are useful at every age. The ability to search for information is not the same as the ability to evaluate it, and repeating a convincing explanation is not necessarily evidence that someone understands the subject.
Social media also encourages an interesting contradiction: people frequently demand evidence from individuals they disagree with while accepting questionable claims from creators they already trust. A person may dismiss a professional study because its findings conflict with their beliefs, yet enthusiastically share an unsourced video that supports those same beliefs. Another may assume that a content creator is trustworthy simply because they seem relatable, speak confidently, or criticize institutions the viewer already distrusts. Of course, skepticism toward authority isn’t inherently unreasonable. Experts can disagree, institutions can make mistakes, and established knowledge can change as new evidence emerges. Questioning claims is an essential part of learning. However, meaningful skepticism requires applying the same standards to information we like and information we dislike. It also requires understanding that personal experience, while valuable, does not automatically establish a universal conclusion. Someone who successfully improved their own health through a particular routine may have a worthwhile story to share, but their experience alone cannot prove that the same approach will work safely for everyone. Similarly, a person’s frustration with a financial institution, educational system, or medical provider may deserve serious consideration without automatically validating every broader claim they make about that institution. There is a difference between sharing an experience, offering an informed opinion, and presenting oneself as a qualified authority. Unfortunately, online audiences are not always encouraged to recognize those distinctions, particularly when sensational claims attract attention more readily than careful explanations.
Perhaps the solution isn’t to discourage ordinary people from discussing complicated subjects, but to encourage greater intellectual honesty about what they know and what they don’t. Social media can be an extraordinary educational resource when people approach it with curiosity, reasonable skepticism, and a willingness to verify information. Before accepting a claim, audiences can ask whether the speaker has relevant experience or qualifications, whether credible evidence supports the information, and whether other reliable sources reach similar conclusions. They can also consider whether the creator acknowledges uncertainty, explains limitations, and corrects mistakes when necessary. None of these practices requires blindly trusting every credentialed professional or dismissing everyone who lacks a formal degree. Expertise can develop through multiple paths, including practical experience and independent study, but credible knowledge still requires more than confidence and an enthusiastic audience. Most importantly, we should remember that being informed doesn’t mean possessing an immediate answer to every question. Sometimes the most intelligent response a person can offer is simply, “I don’t know enough about that to say.” Unfortunately, such an admission rarely makes for a sensational thirty-second video. So perhaps social media hasn’t made everyone an expert after all. Perhaps it has simply given everyone a platform—and left the rest of us responsible for learning the difference between someone who knows what they’re talking about and someone who merely sounds like they do.
