I think that most of us have heard about the "wisdom of crowds" theory, where the opinions of a large group of diverse people are able to come to an equal or better answer than any single individual in the group. However, there are a lot of caveats in this, because the theory assumes that each individual in the group is independent and uninfluenced, as well as someone looking to give an accurate answer.

You can very easily get group think then though, like a work team who have say ten members and nobody new joins for five years, they all eventually start to think in similar ways and can miss obvious errors in their ways, so it's always good to bring in fresh blood. To be fair though "wisdom of crowds" probably does work a lot of the time, but it depends very much on the question and where it is being asked, as in my experience some people say what they think they are expected to, rather than what they truly believe in certain surroundings and situations..

And this is where the theory falls down in today's world, because the "crowd" that makes up the loud voices of social media are homogenous in thought and have very little skin in the game, so they needn't worry about the accuracy, because they will not be the ones paying the price. They can scream and shout and bully based on their chosen movement of the moment, and then in the next instant, move off to another competing idea with just as much voice and just as little skin.

Yes, social media is terrible for this moral click bait. Mostly these people don't give two shits and just want the clicks, followers and dollars...