The democratization of information and opinion enabled by social media platforms has revealed not only disagreements among so-called experts, but also the sheer multiplicity of perspectives that often challenge traditional institutional narratives.
As a result, institutional trust, which was previously rooted in the credibility of institutions, has become more volatile. Reputation, history, tradition, deep knowledge and experience are no longer unquestionable proof of expertise or authority. The 2024 Philippine Trust Study (PTS) highlights this shift, showing that trust is now tied to demonstrated competence and accountability through proof rather than institutional reputation (EON Group & Ateneo de Manila University Department of Development Studies, 2024).
Globally, trust is moving from traditional institutions to independent experts or personalities, open-source investigations and online discussion platforms, and citizen-led initiatives (Newman et al.,2024). Ironically, transparency, which was once considered a way to strengthen credibility, is now contributing to the decline in institutional trust (UNDP, 2022; Maati et al., 2023).
As individuals increasingly rely on—and believe—decentralized sources for knowledge and validation, they become more exposed to perspectives contrary to those traditionally held by institutions.
Educational institutions are no longer the sole gatekeepers of learning and credentials since not only can individuals now readily acquire knowledge on the internet and from social media communities, but they can also just as readily earn accreditation from independent providers online.
Government institutions no longer have the monopoly on power, authority and public trust with the rise of loosely regulated systems like blockchain, cryptocurrencies, DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) or crowd-sourcing platforms that create new and direct forms of governance, transactions and decision making.
Religious institutions can no longer claim to be the only official interpreters of spiritual and moral truths given today’s online availability of diverse belief systems, unofficial faith communities, and seek guidance from self-styled spiritual leaders.
With social media and digital platforms breaking down institutional barriers to information, the public now also has unprecedented access to the inner workings of institutions, including governments, corporations, media, and academia, revealing failures in leadership, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and questionable decision-making (UNDP, 2022; Mestre, 2024). Every failure, misstep, or hidden agenda can potentially be exposed to be dissected, debated, and dissed in real time.
The credibility and influence of traditional institutions as stalwarts of what is true, right, and fair have been substantially weakened, making it more challenging for institutions to lead the public discourse and to influence opinion.
In such a fragmented landscape, expertise and credibility are increasingly fluid and volatile, increasing polarization as people accept and define authority on their own terms. Without a shared trust in established institutions, governance, media, religion, and education will need to learn to navigate in a world where authority is not granted but constantly contested.
Increasingly, credibility is less about expertise and more about ubiquity and performance. A well-timed viral video with an emotionally charged speech or a bold act of defiance over a raging issue could carry more weight than years of careful research. In this world of ours, action speaks louder than what is ethically or scientifically correct. Spectacle overshadows substance.
Constantly challenged and rewritten, laws are no longer the steadfast bedrock of society; independent citizen movements push for decentralized decision-making, demanding direct participation and collective action over traditional top-down approaches.
Once the gatekeepers of truth, news from mainstream media are now drowned in a sea of competing narratives. People seem to prefer personalities who ‘feel’ trustworthy, regardless of accuracy over professional journalism leaving society vulnerable to disinformation and resistant to reasoned debate.
Traditional media literacy is no longer enough. We need to equip ourselves with critical digital literacy to interpret and evaluate the algorithm-driven content, spot manipulative narratives and assess the various sources of information.
While transparency can increase the vulnerability of institutions, providing real-time data, fact-checking systems, open-source audits, and access to decision-making processes is always a move towards proactive trust-building.
Institutions may want to rethink their role, moving away from claiming to be the only authorities and experts to serving as facilitators of new information systems. Developing cooperative collective intelligence networks, for example, can help individuals and institutions build on each others’ knowledge, activate shared understanding, and empower communities to contribute to solutions.
Aznar, J., & The New York Times. Crew members and hosts preparing for a newscast in April at ABS-CBN’s Studio in the Manila suburb of Quezon City..., 15 Dec. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/world/asia/philippines-congress-media-duterte-abs-cbn.html. Accessed 31 Mar. 2025.
Erie Times News. This is the post truth era of politics, 7 Dec. 2016, www.goerie.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2016/12/07/this-is-post-truth-era/24403680007/. Accessed 31 Mar. 2025.
Eon Group & Ateneo de Manila University Department of Development Studies. (2024). Philippine trust study. https://www.eon.com.ph/
Maati, A., Edel, M., Saglam, K., Schlumberger, O., & Sirikupt, C. (2023). Information, doubt, and democracy: How digitization spurs democratic decay. Democratization, 31(5), 922–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2234831
Mestre, A. (2024, December 13). On the crisis and democratization of knowledge – The sociopolitical impact of AI and knowledge hierarchy. Journal of Futures Studies. https://jfsdigital.org/on-the-crisis-and-democratization-of-knowledge-the-sociopolitical-impact-of-ai-and-knowledge-hierarchy/
Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Robertson, C. T., Ross Arguedas, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2024). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2024. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-06/RISJ_DNR_2024_Digital_v10%20lr.pdf
Orbeta, N. J. (2025). Hot content Tuesday’s House hearing on the spread of misinformation on social media attracts an unusual on-site coverage—from social media content creators. https://plus.inquirer.net/news/vloggers-question-house-fake-news-probe-at-sc/
Rosillo, R., and The Freeman. Journalism transformations, 16 Sept. 2019, www.philstar.com/the-freeman/opinion/2019/09/16/1952160/editorial-journalism-transformations. Accessed 31 Mar. 2025.
United Nations Development Programme. (2022). Information integrity: Forging a pathway to truth, resilience and trust. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2022-02/UNDP-Information-Integrity-Forging-a-Pathway-to-Truth-Resilience-and-Trust.pdf
Varcas, M., & The Philippine Star. (2024).