Gone are the days when having one's opinions heard by a huge amount of audience is reserved for public intellectuals and newspaper columnists. Everyone can have an opinion, sure. And in the age of the internet, not only does everyone has an opinion but everyone can certainly have theirs voiced out, amplified, and proliferated.

A quick scroll on social media --- be it Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and even Instagram and Tiktok --- would show how the digital landscape has shifted from a mere archive of personal shenanigans and a place for social networking to a battleground of opinions. From the most harmless, mundane, and pettiest, such as whether pineapples should go with pizza (they don't) or if mint chocolate is the best chocolate flavor (it is), to the more serious and political ones; those that involve human rights and freedoms.

The majority of what we see and read on social media are opinions from ordinary people, a product of the globalization and democratization of information in the age of internet. If you don't like the new BTS album, go and write a takedown on Twitter. Your favorite queen got eliminated in the new episode of Drag Race? Post why the judges made a mistake. If you disagree with any of my opinions, even if it's valid, here's a well-deserved block. But when does an opinion become so bad?

Opinion formation in the age of the internet

(Screengrab from The Social Network (2010)/Netflix.)

Let's take a look at social media platforms. Being able to scrutinize how these channels of information shape how we think, process information, view the world and ultimately form our own opinions' claptrap. After all, communication scholar Marshall McLuhan once said that "the medium is the message."

I think it's a really great practice to see how we form opinions aside from the internal decision-making processes we have but also how the medium, in this era of the internet, shapes our way of thinking.

The platform disables users to be ignorant of things. In a snap of a finger, you can already search online that your favorite artist said something racist, your go-to makeup brand is engaging in unethical labor practices, or your bag isn't made out of vegan-friendly materials. Hence, the pressure for everyone online to quickly form an opinion, and post a scathing take, even if half-baked.

With how things are turning out right now, every day is not a slow news day. There's always something to be exasperated, disappointed, sad, irked, and angered about. And it's not a bug in the design of the platform, but a feature of it. A glaring feature so embedded in this algorithm makes people desensitized to otherwise crucial and important issues. Simply because, well, we consume information and media that's so ill-conceived and thus we tend to spew ill-conceived takes.

It's quite a wild turn from how we used to get information via traditional means. In print, we read opinions of known political figureheads and columnists; on broadcast television and radio, we see and hear interviews from credible individuals about a certain issue. At least, there's some form of vetting when ordinary people used to send letters to the editors and submit think pieces in broadsheets or when reporters get the pulse of the masses through man-on-the-street interviews and the like. The power of traditional media to gatekeep is basically overshadowed by online media's nature of posting content where everyone, every user is a content creator.

Now, in the age of the internet, it's different. Ordinary folks' opinions, especially those that are misinformed, are put on the same equal footing as those coming from experts. The thing is, social media platforms' blue verified badges or check marks can't do much in giving more weight to the opinions of those whose voices on an issue truly matter.

More than anything, our patterns of online behavior and information consumption also spill into how we make crucial decisions offline. Take for example voting — the very act that elects people in positions of power.

I won't have to go too far in history to cite an instance where social media played a key role in shaping public opinion and national discourse. In the 2022 Philippine national elections, we saw how disinformation is seeded in various social media platforms' content, and one of the narratives, perhaps that primes and legitimizes illogical arguments and false information, is the rather postmodern catchall phrase of "just respect my opinion." Even if that opinion is rooted in mis- and disinformation. What a lazy shutdown that refuses to engage in any meaningful discourse.

We saw right before our eyes how the internet has rendered all of us to be so reactionary, flippant, and shallow — symptomatic of how the default action online is to be performative.

We can also shut up sometimes

There is value in silence. In the midst of the wildfire of noise and the seemingly endless bardagulan or petty catfights on social media, an essential trait we might have overlooked most of the time is shutting up.

While, of course, online platforms put a premium on mileages like engagements, there is a tendency for the message we're trying to put forward to get diluted, get lost in context, and be wayward in key values. Yes, it's great to have people talking on certain issues --- so go chase that clout, as it also, in one way or another, penetrates filter bubbles of other people and would make them aware of socio-political happenings. Especially on concerns that aren't often being highlighted via mainstream channels.

It gets concerning, however, when the message gets lost in the crazy pandemonium of noise. More so, when we read pieces of opinion that seem to have all the proper buzzwords and jargon but ultimately fail to make sense and add insights to the discourse.

Really, the problem does not lie in whether an individual is silent on things they don't have enough information about. And silence, in this regard, does not necessarily mean complicity. The problem though is staying silent on issues that matter after you've processed things and listened to people who know what they're talking about.

Activists do not only go out of their way to make noise outside the streets with their placards containing their calls. It's a minuscule part of their work as activists. Aside from consultation and immersion in communities, they also study in silence and read books and take time off to engage with other activists and people in the community. Thus, it's just a matter of choosing our battles, knowing when to shut up, and deciding when we should speak up.

I echo what Erik Angner wrote about epistemic humility during the height of the pandemic, he said: "Epistemic humility is an intellectual virtue. It is grounded in the realization that our knowledge is always provisional and incomplete --- and that it might require revision in light of new evidence."

It's okay to say "I don't know," or "I can't form an opinion right now because I still don't know enough." It isn't so hard to do. After all, as humans, we really cannot know it all. And we never will.