This. I'm actually optimistic (I know, Unpopular Opinion) about the future for a bunch of reasons, but one of them is the increased transparency that we now have on our institutions.

It used to be that the media controlled how much of what went on that we saw, and the media was part of an establishment that valued the status quo and "stability" so didn't report on some things.

Now, the blinders are off and we're seeing what was always there.

For Science, this means that the institutions that were set up by a bunch of rich men who could afford to spend their time satisfying their curiosity, are now visibly falling apart. Because we can see this, we can change it to something better. The pressure to kill off the journal system is growing. The various crises that the article mentions, etc. This is all good, in the long term.

I strongly agree.

But I'm also increasingly worried that we're not very far from losing this. It already seems like social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit are increasingly controlled by US propaganda and corporate interests. It's hard to know how far gone what we think is true freedom of speech and democratization of voice already is.

I don't know. I've been around academics for awhile now and really tried to get a good answer to this and I still don't know. If anything I don't think it's always been like this.

There's a variety of indicators suggesting that something changed in the mid90s to about 2000 with academics (grant success rates, publications, etc). When I talk to much more senior colleagues, I also get the sense something changed even if they describe it in different terms.

Was everything better before? No, I think many things are better now, but it feels like the fundamentals of the system are worse. To me it feels like being in a house that's been remodeled with a new roof and HVAC system, but where the ground is sinking and foundation is in the process of collapsing.