On any given day, a graduate student, who has poured years of work into her research, will stand before three or four professors to present her work and then gets relentlessly grilled to make sure her work is relevant, thorough, and substantial. If they agree the work is, the student will end up with shiny letters after her name. If not, it's back to the lab to get it up to speed.
The process, while nerve-racking, is essential. It works as a check-and-balance to ensure students have put enough cognitive muscle into their work and that they are ready to contribute to the knowledge pool. On a higher level, researchers and academics have their work peer-reviewed before publication in an attempt for something similar. (There are flaws, as with any system, but it is a self-regulation that mostly works.)
On issues about the internet and technology, there are far less stringent protocols. Given the relative youth of the community, this is understandable. On one hand, you have armchair criticism resulting in the hatesplosion of YouTube comments, as an example. This is an eyesore, but easy to filter out. On the other hand, people also slip through anemic ideas and analysis that go unchecked, and this is much more problematic.
How many posts and pages of social media expertise have we all gone through that are no more useful than the claims of penile enlargement and royalty's locked away wealth?