Are online political influencers modern-day sophists?

The Athenian sophists, as depicted by Plato in Gorgias, were individuals renowned for their powers of persuasion, capable of convincing an audience, whether laypeople or professionals, on subjects beyond their own expertise. Plato illustrates this through the example of a person who could persuade the public on matters of health more effectively than a doctor. The dialogue in Gorgias centres on an exchange between Socrates and Gorgias, a renowned orator from Sicily. Interested readers can find a copy of the dialogue on the Internet Classics Archive. Through Socrates' questioning, Plato depicts sophistic rhetoric as a skill more concerned with persuasion than with facts or knowledge, raising the question of whether convincing speech necessarily serves the truth. It would seem not. Who among us hasn’t, at some point, been sold a pup one way or the other? It is a fact of life that one cannot rely on another’s persuasive words alone, whether in business, politics, or any other domain. This suggests that unless we have personal experience in the matter at hand, or can get unbiased facts about it somewhere, we are on a pretty sticky wicket.

So are modern-day influencers, political or otherwise, sophists? Like the Athenian orators of old they may be articulate, quick-witted, and beguiling. Also like the ancient orators they are unregulated and somewhat unaccountable. They pop up in our feeds, often unbidden, like genies of algorithmic provenance to either support our previously held beliefs or try and persuade us of theirs. So how do we discern truth from fiction, real knowledge from mere persuasion? Contemporary online influencers appear authoritative; their confidence, fluency, and the number of followers they have on social media platforms bolster their position. These resources, personal or otherwise, along with repeated exposure, help create the appearance of expertise without necessarily constituting it. However, in Gorgias, Plato is making a hostile attack on sophistry. In reality, the Athenian sophists were not a rogue group intent on trickery and deception. Indeed, many arrived in the city to teach ancient lore and rhetoric to people who needed the knowledge and skills to participate in public and political life. Likewise, it is apparent that many online personalities are not necessarily deceitful; their aim, and indeed many would argue their raison d’être, is to enlighten their audience by providing viewpoints and investigations neglected by the mainstream media.

However, influencers' protestations of good intent and the provision of alternative viewpoints do not necessarily constitute knowledge, far from it. Nor does confidence, popularity, or independence from legacy media in any way guarantee integrity. The difficulty for audiences of online content, therefore, is in the determination of what constitutes the truth of the matter, because much like our ancient orators online influencers operate in an environment where motives are often unclear. How do we know if these people are working for personal gain, acting out of party allegiance, or merely cultivating popularity for other ends? This is a problem that cannot be simply resolved through editorial oversight as in legacy media because even they were never free from political, or commercial influence. But at least with the old red tops and broadsheets one generally knew where one stood, their allegiances and editorial positions were clear enough for readers to be able to take them into account. Perhaps a more significant difference between the legacy press and online platforms lies in the medium itself.

Contemporary platforms do not simply publish the output of social commentators, political or otherwise, willy-nilly; their algorithms promote content that drives engagement and therefore revenue, which determines whose voices gain prominence and creates the appearance of popularity, and this pseudo-popularity born of repetitive engagement can create the appearance of an authoritative voice. Perhaps, then, the more significant question is not whether online influencers are modern-day sophists, but whether lightly regulated digital environments amplify the very qualities that made sophistry persuasive in the first place: articulacy, wit, confidence, charm, and the ability to persuade beyond expertise, regardless of fact.

Up for discussion then is this: should we be less concerned about whether online influencers are sophists, and more concerned about the digital environments that make sophistry pay?