By Prof. Assoc. Dr. Bledar Kurti
We live in a strange time. Never before has humanity had such extensive access to information and, at the same time, never has it been so easy for a lack of knowledge to be disguised as expertise. Social media has created a new kind of public figure: the pseudo-intellectual who knows everything, comments on everything, and criticizes everything.
They appear on Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and other platforms and, within a matter of minutes, can offer an opinion on a constitutional issue, diagnose an illness, evaluate an architectural project, interpret a theological text, analyze the economy, judge a military strategy, correct a diplomat, explain how a state should be governed, and even dictate the course of geopolitics for the next decade.
The problem is not that they speak. The problem is that they speak with the authority of an expert without carrying the responsibility of an expert. And this is creating a dangerous mixture of speculation, prejudice, irony, and half-truths, all served in the name of “freedom of speech.”
Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental pillars of democracy. But freedom of speech does not transform an opinion into a fact, speculation into expertise, or defamation into an argument. Everyone has the right to speak, but no one automatically earns the right for their words to be treated as knowledge. Democracy does not require every person to be an expert in every field. Democracy requires us to know how to distinguish the expert from the commentator.
A lawyer spends years studying in order to interpret the law. A physician spends years receiving education and training to understand disease. An architect does not build professional competence through a video on the internet. A theologian does not acquire authority from a quotation taken out of context. A scholar of international relations does not construct an analysis solely from a Facebook post. And a political scientist cannot be replaced by someone who has watched three interviews on YouTube.
Yet in the digital space, the opposite often happens. Knowledge acquired through years of study is replaced by convictions acquired within five minutes. This is alarming in our time. It is one of the greatest challenges of our era.
Some of these commentators have also developed a highly effective technique: they do not argue; they ridicule. They do not analyze; they mock. They do not challenge with facts; they rely on a catchy phrase. They do not build an alternative; they attempt to destroy every idea that is proposed. A government project becomes “absurd,” a reform becomes a “disaster,” an agreement becomes a “betrayal,” an investment becomes a “scandal,” a decision becomes a “disgrace,” while every institution is portrayed as incompetent or corrupt, sometimes even as part of some global conspiracy.
Irony works extremely well on social media because it requires less preparation than an argument. It is much easier to say “What nonsense!” than to explain why a public policy is wrong.
It is much easier to write “This is a dictatorship” than to analyze a constitutional provision. It is much easier to declare a building an “architectural disaster” than to examine its urban planning, structure, functionality, and context. It is much easier to label a country an “enemy,” a religion “evil,” or a community “problematic” than to study the history, sociology, and facts surrounding them.
This is where we move from criticism into another territory: generalizations, demonization, and language that may cross the legal boundaries of permissible expression. Freedom of speech is not a license to incite hatred against nations, religions, or social groups. In Albania, there are also specific provisions of the Criminal Code, including Article 265, alongside other provisions concerning the incitement of hatred and discrimination. Therefore, we must be very careful: criticizing an idea is democracy; demonizing a group of people is something else.
But here an even greater question arises: How should governments and world leaders respond to this new culture of relentless criticism, in which every decision can immediately be attacked by thousands of commentators, often without either evidence or expertise?
The answer cannot be censorship. Nor can it be fear. And above all, it cannot be surrender. The answer must be leadership.
A government should not change a sound policy simply because it has been mocked on social media. A leader should not abandon a strategic vision simply because a viral video has attacked it. A reform should not be discarded merely because someone has found an ironic phrase with which to ridicule it.
Governance is not a daily popularity contest. This applies to every government, opposition party, institutional leader, company, and organization. History was not built by those who followed every voice of the moment. History was built by people who had the vision to see beyond the noise.
Winston Churchill expressed this idea in an extraordinarily powerful way: “If we stop to throw stones at every dog that barks, we shall never reach our destination.” This should be an important principle for every leader.
Because historic decisions are called historic for a reason: they are often made at moments when nobody believes in them.
Columbus did not sail west because everyone agreed with him. Churchill did not stand against Hitler because opinion polls guaranteed his success. Kennedy did not announce the goal of putting a man on the Moon because the technology was already ready. Great reformers, statesmen, and visionaries have not always acted amid applause.
They acted because they believed the future had to be built, not predicted by the crowd.
This does not mean that every government is right and every critic is wrong. Quite the opposite. Criticism is vital. The media is vital. The opposition is vital. Academia is vital. Civil society is vital.
But criticism must be informed.
A healthy democracy does not need less criticism. It needs better criticism. We do not need more voices simply saying “no.” We need people who are capable of explaining why not, what alternative they propose, and what evidence supports their position.
That is the difference between criticism and cynicism. The critic says: “This policy does not work, and here are the reasons.” The cynic says: “Nothing works.” The critic proposes an alternative. The cynic feeds on failure. The critic demands accountability. The cynic seeks only an audience.
And here lies the responsibility of the public as well. Do not give someone authority simply because they speak eloquently. Do not consider a statement true simply because it has gone viral. Do not confuse confidence with competence. Do not confuse irony with intelligence. And above all, do not confuse the number of followers with the number of arguments.
A society that respects knowledge must restore a simple principle: every serious question requires serious competence. Governments and leaders should not respond to this culture of noise by becoming louder than the noise. They should respond with results. With stronger institutions. With reforms that work. With more stable economies. With better conditions. With more successful diplomacy. With security, development, and vision. Because noise fades. Results remain.
A viral post lasts a day. A successful reform can transform a generation. An ironic comment is forgotten. A historic decision can change a nation.
Therefore, leaders should not live with their eyes fixed on the comments of the day. They must keep their eyes on the horizon. Because at the end of history, no one will ask how many times they were mocked on Facebook. They will ask: What did they build? What did they change? What did they leave behind?
And that is the true test of leadership: to keep moving forward even when the crowd tells you to stop, to think beyond the noise, and to have the courage to build what time itself will ultimately judge.
Not every voice deserves a response. Not every criticism deserves a retreat. Not every opposition is an argument. And not every opinion is knowledge.
History is not written by responding to every stone thrown from the roadside. History is made by continuing toward the destination, toward the place beyond the horizon, where even the noise eventually falls silent in shame.
© 2026 Argumentum
