One of the benefits of the internet is that everyone's opinions can be heard.
One of the disadvantages of the internet is that everyone's opinions can be heard.
My grad-level Theory of Exposition course has spent a lot of focus on the truth--defining it, explaining it, reading other people's opinions of it. But those definitions and explanations are written by educated people, who know how to use grammar and syntax properly. They state their opinion, back it with facts, and cite other theorists and philosophers to reinforce their statements. But in the day and age of the internet, people don't always do that. Anyone with an internet connection can start a blog, can post of a forum, can upload a video to YouTube. There are dozens of ways to make yourself heard. And there are dozens of ways to have your opinions discredited.
In the journals and articles we've read, exposition theorists who disagree with one another cite other works, other philosophers, and keep things relatively civil. (And by civil, I mean Plato never bluntly told Aristotle to die in a fire.) But things are different now, especially when it comes to online exposition. There are no rules online; anything goes and disagreements degenerate into schoolyard taunts. But does that mean there's no truth behind what individuals are expressing? Does that mean their opinions aren't valid because they weren't able to express themselves clearly?
Here's a good example: a couple of years ago, the game "Super PSTW Action RPG" debuted on the website NewGrounds.com, a flash-driven website that allows people to upload their own animations and video games. People loved the game.
Well, most people loved the game.
