1. The opposite is true.

Doctors hate the internet. It lets patients check the accuracy of their diagnoses. It lets patients find out for themselves what the side effects of various drugs are. It lets patients research their symptoms before going to the doctor. In short, it empowers people and allows them to question the wisdom, or stupidity, of the advice they are given. The result is that doctors are frequently shown up as being very, very far from the all-knowing, up-to-date, diligent and infallible sources of treatment that they still think they are.

Lawyers hate the internet for the same reasons

Judges, too.

In fact, the major effect that the internet has had on "the professions" is to remove the veil of mystery and awe that they have built up around themselves, and it has left them exposed as little more than pushers of jargon-laced opinions, frequently with no factual basis that "because we've always done it like that".

If the internet allows jurors to find out FACTS for themslves - things that the prosecution or defence have failed to uncover, or sought to hide - then power to them. Maybe it's time that juries took a more active role: asking questions, presuming to doubt, probing and investigating for themselves rather than sitting passively and only being allowed to decide on the basis of what the establishment feels is all they need to be told. Juries used to be selected BECAUSE they had privileged, local knowledge (and even because they DID know the accused). Maybe we should take back some of that lost background and place it in the courtroom.