While I agree that the article does a good job of describing the current state of things, I don't think it has always been this way. Let's go with the opening

While I agree that the article does a good job of describing the current state of things, I don't think it has always been this way. Let's go with the opening paragraph: "Consider how one should respond to a simple case of disagreement. Frank sees a bird in the garden and believes it’s a finch. Standing beside him, Gita sees the same bird, but she’s confident it’s a sparrow. What response should we expect from Frank and Gita? If Frank’s response were: ‘Well, I saw it was a finch, so you must be wrong,’ then that would be irrationally stubborn – and annoying – of him. (The same goes for Gita, of course.) Instead, both should become less confident in their judgment." It's interesting they point out that both should be less confident. I think this is actually how it was a few years ago. People used this tactic of gaslighting or spreading possibilities to discount the hazards of cigarettes and climate change. Comments like "well not all scientists agree," and "some experts have taken the opposite view." Then people began to doubt all experts, not just the ones spreading false rumors. They determined if you can't trust one expert, and you don't have the knowledge to determine if they are a good actor (which most people don't have), then you just shouldn't trust experts and "trust yourself." Now we're in the realm where our opinion is our reality. And since there are no experts or anyone to trust, people are just herding opinion in their direction to get people to buy things or do stupid things. I feel like in the 90s, if someone were given the same story about what bird it was, they would ask "well do either of these people know anything about birds?" If someone knew more, they would trust their opinion more. Now that question isn't even asked.