On the Sameness of Internet Discourse

How everyone became a critic and criticism died

In the last months I’ve observed a steady rise of “creative director/strategist” content, that in the past could pass for what critics did. But since everyone now has access to media platforms, everyone became a critic. Unfortunately, this doesn’t mean that the discourse on the internet has reached new heights — on the contrary, it feels like the lows are greater than ever.

The forementioned content creators limit their opinions to 1–minute videos, 140 characters and social boards. They have no background in whatever they’re voicing their opinions on and if they manage to mention a philosopher or a sociologist, they’ll apply their concepts to wide–ranging points that usually wouldn’t last under more thorough scrutiny — and it’s not like 99% of the audience will ever reach for the original source and confront it with the content. The audience will already be watching the next video.

The curator who’s never been to a museum

If you spend any time on TikTok, you’ll find a lot of “curators” voicing their opinions about art without ever setting their foot in a museum (unless it’s KAWS or for Instagram shoot), “strategists” who repeat the same tired points on whatever is trending and “cultural analysts”, whose depth of analysis has never been challenged.

The critics of old media at least came prepared. They knew that you can’t judge art without knowing its context — where it came from, who was the author, what rules it’s breaking. They’d read the source materials, studied things and developed frameworks that went deeper into things than commenting “<3” emoji.

Today’s creators are not critics — even though they behave similarly. They’re content machines whose content is designed to feed the algorithms. And it’s so freaking boring.

Everyone is a critic — so no one is

I’d call this the Suzy phenomenon (no offense to Suzies) — named after every GoodReads/Letterboxd reviewer posting hot takes on Moby Dick despite barely finishing English classes. The Suzies have always existed, but now the algorithms have amplified their voices — after all they’re funny, “relatable” and “accessible”.

Now — I’m not saying everyone shouldn’t have opinions about cultural products. What I’m saying is — not all opinions are equal. Why is the internet treaing the opinion of someone who has read three books last 5 years, only by Colleen Hoover as the same as an opinion of someone who spent decades studying literature. Why do people act like expertise is just gatekeeping?

This resulted in a discourse that’s both over– and underwhelming — endless takes that say nothing. Everyone is perfectly equal — and perfectly shallow.

The poverty of anti–intellectualism

What really gets to me is how this reflects our broader cultural disdain for humanities and art. We ‘re immediately dismissive of anyone who uses words we don’t recognize, who references something that isn’t a product of the last 30 years. “Elitist” is the ultimate slur, used whenever someone suggests that maybe, just maybe, some people are more informed than others.

The wild thing is how selective this phenomenon is. The same people who will watch hours of skincare content (I do it too) or discuss whether what gaming hardware is the best will dismiss any literary criticism as pretentious bullshit. Expertise matters except for culture — here we are all equal.

But good criticism isn’t about showing off or gatekeeping — it’s helping us see more clearly, think deeply and connect more meaningfully with what we consume. When I see a critic explain movie techniques or how the narration serves the story themes I’m all ears — they’re explaining things to me that I may have never thought of. They’re sharing tools and wisdom with me that makes the experience richer for me. I want more Susan Sontags and Roger Eberts — people unafraid of holding strong views, even if I disagree with them.

The Bullshit Jobs

The Trend Report has recently written how the creative directors is the hottest job of our times. Funny — if only those were creative directors winning at Cannes and not CDs directing their social media presence.

They say the most obvious observations, the most inane points while sounding like they’ve discovered the truth of the universe — and honestly who can blame them. Most of us consume many hours of social media content a day or and when we are out in the world the increasing part of it is still designed to be shareable — like restaurants decorating for social media. We can’t escape being influenced by the internet, just like a fish can’t escape water.

Now obviously these people aren’t bad, but they’re symptoms of a system that’s confusing commentary with criticism and hot takes with analysis. They thrive because we live in an economy that rewards attention, not depth or value that stays with you.

What we threw away

When the idea of a critic was killed, we thought we were democratizing cricism. In many ways we did — it allows me to write this piece after all and my opinion doesn’t matter. More voices, more perspectives — some of them genuinely valuable.

But we’ve also lost what separates insight from noise. The critics weren’t just opinionated people — they acted as translators, historians, philosophers. They helped us understand not just what art was, but why it mattered, how it’s connected to our everyday lives.

In defense of standards

Arguing for expertise isn’t elitist — it’s practical. Some people ARE more informed than others about certain things. Some insight DO run deeper.

I want to read criticism by people who are smarter than me — who’ve read more widely, seen more movies, thought harder about this stuff. I want criticism to challenge me, not clap me on my back. I want vocabulary that expands my brain, insights I wouldn’t always reach on my own.

This isn’t about exclusion — it’s about recognizing that good criticism, like any craft, required preparation and knowledge. I wouldn’t want a house made by a dude who has watched a 15–min. YT video how to build a house — why would I accept that level of casual expertise from cultural commentators?

Just ranting here

I know that this sounds like old man yelling at clouds, but I’m so freaking tired of living in a world where the follower count makes you an authority, where “accessible” is often a synonym for “shallow” and where suggesting that someone may not know what they’re talking about makes you the bad guy.

I want to read and engage with pieces by people who know their shit. Who can show me things my brain didn’t think of, who put in the work to earn their opinions. I want cultural criticism that challenges me — not reinforces my beliefs.

The internet gave everyone a voice — which is beautiful. But it also made people believe that all voices matter the same — which is insane. Some people are more knowledgeable. Some perspectives more valuable. Some criticism is actually worth engaging with.

And if that makes me sound like a snob — so be it. At least I try to engage thoughtfully with the world.