The Gatekeepers of Misinformation:

In today's influencer-driven ecosystem, the public often assumes that the most visible voices in true crime must also be the most credible. But visibility is not a credential—and the consequences of that confusion are quietly reshaping how audiences think about criminal justice, forensic science, and even truth itself.

This article isn’t about naming names. It’s about exposing a pattern. A pattern where creators—not licensed or proven professionals—are increasingly seen as the “go-to experts” on criminal behavior, simply because they have an audience.

The Problem Isn’t Just Misinformation—It’s Platform Control

In the world of true crime commentary, a growing number of podcast hosts, YouTubers, and livestream moderators have become the self-appointed gatekeepers of what the public is allowed to consider valid. Their strategy is simple: invite only guests who support their narrative, dismiss those who don’t, and frame contradiction as a threat—not a discussion.

This is not open inquiry. It’s narrative policing.

Some promote a single theory for years, never acknowledging the evolution of evidence or the credibility of dissenting voices. Others confidently declare trained forensic professionals “wrong” in short-form videos, without offering counter-analysis or transparent sourcing. And yet others build careers off discrediting experts they've never studied with, worked beside, or evaluated fairly.

The Anatomy of a Digital Gatekeeper

Gatekeepers (or as I refer to as "hater-creators" or "social media monsters") are not always aggressive. Sometimes they’re polite. Professional sounding. Even warm.

But their behavior follows a predictable arc:

• They control the narrative by filtering which voices their audience hears
• They reward agreement, not expertise
• They equate dissent with defamation
• They substitute tone for training
• They invoke “skepticism” while practicing censorship

When questioned, they rarely cite peer-reviewed studies or formal education. Instead, they lean on anecdotes, selective editing, and a loyal fanbase that misinterprets frequency with fact.

Why It Matters

This isn’t about ego. It’s about erosion. When actual forensic psychologists, document examiners, pathologists, or other experts are dismissed in favor of self-trained commentators, the public loses its ability to separate opinion from process.

This also puts victims, survivors, wrongly accused individuals—and even truth itself—at risk.

In one recent case, a credentialed expert in questioned document examination and behavioral forensics was dismissed by multiple online creators who each admitted having no training in either field. I know - because I was that expert, but I know there are many others. The dismissal of the "hater-creators" was not based on chain of custody, methodology, or any known investigative framework. It was based on audience expectation—and mob, group think loyalty. That’s not skepticism. That’s intellectual dishonesty.

A Quiet Call to Responsibility

To those watching this unfold from the sidelines—especially professionals who’ve grown tired of defending their work publicly—know this: staying silent is no longer the ethical high road. It's how noise wins.

Misinformation doesn’t always shout.

Sometimes, it curates.

Not only have I written Social Media Monsters to educate readers on the mentality behind creeps with keyboards, but I also wrote Digital Lynch Mobs to expose how platforms reward outrage, disregard victims, and overlook those working quietly for justice. These projects are not reactionary—they're preventive. They're record-keeping.

Because when platforms confuse personality with qualification, they don’t just mislead their audience. They create conditions where ethical professionals appear less trustworthy than the influencers pretending to replace them.

That’s not harmless.

It’s cultural erosion disguised as commentary.

It’s time for qualified voices to return to the table—not to compete for attention, but to restore balance in how the public receives information about criminal behavior, justice, and forensic truth. That return doesn’t require theatrics. It requires record-keeping. Documentation. Quiet certainty. And ethical persistence. Because those who work in forensics aren’t driven by likes—they’re driven by facts that hold up under scrutiny, even if they don’t trend.