Defense of Non‑Experts' Voices

Argues that excluding non‑experts from large public conversations is not obviously the best route to better public understanding; popular platforms can surface legitimate dissent, lived experience, and alternative framings even when guests lack formal credentials. The piece examines a specific Rogan debate (Douglas Murray vs Dave Smith) to show how the question of who gets amplified is normative and political, not merely technical. — This reframes platform moderation and 'expert v. lay' arguments as tradeoffs about democratic voice, authority, and who counts as a public epistemic actor, with implications for content policy and civic trust.