We Have Privatized Knowledge and Socialized Misinformation

They say a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth finishes tying its sneakers Today, we have effectively institutionalized that dynamic. We have created an ecosystem where misinformation is frictionless. Lies are free, optimized for engagement, and delivered to your phone with algorithmic precision. Meanwhile, the truth—specifically rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific truth—is usually locked behind a $35 paywall or buried under density and jargon that requires a PhD to decrypt.

I’ve been thinking about this asymmetry a lot. We constantly hear people claim they’ve “done their own research.” Usually, that’s a euphemism for watching a confirmation-bias-fueled video. But I find it hard to blame them entirely. When we make the truth expensive and difficult to read, is it any wonder misinformation is winning?

The cost of this confusion is measured in human lives. We know, scientifically, that social isolation leads to disastrous health outcomes, yet we fail to build connected communities. We know that high-sugar diets and sedentary lifestyles are dangerous, yet we don’t change course. Why? Because financial interests and lobbyists have mastered the frictionless lie. They exploit the gap between public knowledge and scientific reality to protect their bottom lines, ensuring that confusion always outpaces the cure.

This is why I’ve been paying close attention to the new Scholar Labs features in Google Scholar.

I work in IT—I spend a lot of time optimizing workflows and testing local AI models—so I’m usually skeptical of the hype cycle. But what I’m seeing here feels different. It feels like a genuine hedge against the noise. Google is testing an AI-powered search that moves beyond simple keyword matching to actual synthesis. If you ask a question in natural language, it attempts to outline the scientific consensus, citing the papers as it goes.

I am not suggesting that everyone become an expert in every discipline, or that science needs to use less specific language. But I think more people should be involved with rigorous scientific debate. You should be able to disagree with people and still have respect for the process. More people should be involved with conversation. There definitely should be a barrier to entry. It just shouldn’t be so high that it excludes the curious and the eager.

I know hosting data costs money. But there is something fundamentally broken about a system where public tax dollars fund research that the public cannot read. I often use open-access repositories like arXiv or SSRN because they feel like what the internet was promised to be: a library for everyone. But living in these spaces take time and energy and when most people want to understand something they use Google.

If Scholar Labs can successfully lower the barrier to understanding complex topics, that is a substantial victory. It builds a bridge. But until we solve the paywall issue, that bridge ends at a toll booth most people can’t afford.

I want to believe we can fix this. I want to believe tools like this are the first step toward a world where “doing your own research” actually means engaging with science rather than conspiracy. It’s a bit of a dream, but I am hopeful. If we can get more people to understand that science is a product of our humanity, not a special club for a nameless elite, we can rebuild trust in expertise—and start showing meaningful progress toward helping people build better lives.