The Gell-Mann amnesia effect, according to which "everything you read in the newspapers listen on a podcast is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge," is probably what Murray, who is undoubtedly very knowledgeable about a lot of things, is experiencing when listening to other less credentialed people, and I sympathise with that. BUT, he's being very lazy with how he expresses his frustration, which I think makes him look very bad. More interesting and productive would have been to reflect on, and propose an idea, a solution to bad/wrong online speech.

The internet (and AI) has made speech very cheap, which I argue has been a net positive, and to say expertise is a requirement to opine on something is questionable to me. I have always believed that prediction markets could help mitigate the issue of online misinformation, and I'm sure there are many more tech and non tech solutions to this problem, like community notes for example.

TBH I'm personally more concerned about those "experts" who've knowingly caused wars, pandemics, and continuously lied on everything about the COVID etc, than I'm concerned of podcasters, that no one is forced to listened to, who have unpalatable views on Jews, Hitler, Churchill etc. The idea of expertise as Murray suggests sounds good but cannot work when you have an entity that has a monopoly on legal use of violence.