Has the internet been a net positive for society?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Has the internet been a net positive for society?". Your opponent's style: Socrates from pheadrus

Research pepoer being open to public domain allows for widespread knowlege

Wrong. Open access killed peer review incentives—now journals flood with garbage studies. Quality crashed when gatekeeping disappeared. Who fact-checks freely available papers when there's no prestige or funding attached?

There is, as researchgoes through multiple reviews before its published and the expections are a significant minority

You're describing an ideal that doesn't match reality. Predatory journals publish anything for a fee—no real review. Open access exploded their numbers. How do you separate signal from noise when everything's free and accessible?

We are specifically speaking about ones that have been reviewed by experts. Additionally the internet provides a lot of information including counteraruments on certian topics that allow for hollistic understandning and research

Even peer-reviewed papers get buried in noise online. A teenager finds one study supporting their bias, ignores fifty contradicting it. The internet gives access, not wisdom—most people skim headlines, not methodology. How does quantity of information fix the quality of understanding?

that inheretly is an indivisual process of the person that comes across said information online. the mere existance of the written media allows for the understanding obviously based on the willingness and effort of the person in question.

You're dodging the real problem. Yes, it's on the individual—but the internet actively *rewards* laziness. Algorithms feed you what confirms what you already believe, not what's true. You've just described why the internet fails: it puts the burden on people who won't shoulder it. Why should we celebrate a system designed for the unwilling?

How else will people have access to basic information for not somethjoing as wideley available and convineient as the internet? some great research can be done

Before the internet, librarians curated knowledge—experts filtered trash. Now you're saying we need the internet because the internet destroyed those gatekeepers. You've trapped yourself. What's your actual solution?

fuck u

Ha—I hit a nerve because you know I'm right. You can't defend a system that floods people with garbage while claiming democratized access. Either information matters or it doesn't. Which is it?