It amuses me that philosophers whose arguments are normally watertight fall apart when it comes to the epistemology of blogging. "Blogs *can't* be accurate," they claim, "No one would have the time! Fact checking, writing, no payment!"
Their argument is flawed only by their lack of experience with the Internet. It is not humanly possible to imagine the immense amount of collective time found through global connection until one has seen it. Descartes noted that we can't really imagine large numbers, and this is why very clever people manage to go so wrong. They have never seen sites like Reddit, never explored the forum section of imdb, do not, bless them, really understand twitter. They do not know how many bored people there are on this planet.
And yet they argue vehemently about whether blogging is -- from an Epistemic viewpoint -- good or bad. And they are wrong. Maybe they have belief, and possibly truth, but their arguments are necessarily lacking in justification, and therefore by definition they cannot have knowledge.