Perspective?
Sure, what people are saying about anyone being able to be a critic now is accurate, but in terms of professional criticism, the type of person that not only listens to but articulates their feelings about on a daily basis is a certain perspective that (like it or not) a lot of people are fascinated by. Let's just imagine that within the realm of (let's just say) pop music, there was a certain pattern happening throughout the charts that was fairly subtle. A casual music listener would probably just listen to the songs/albums & enjoy or dislike them on their own, but a critic has the added experience of having to have reviewed a ton of other songs/albums before that, & would have to have analysed them on a different level. Long story short, if the trend emerged in a lot of the critic's catalog, they'd probably catch themselves saying the same things about each one, & thus, has come to an understanding of the context that made that song/album work for so many people who may not have caught it. This is why (a lot of the time) you'll see when a critic reviews an album you enjoy & gives it a negative review, they'll probably call it "generic", "nothing special", or "yet another clone of [insert other artist here]". & while that can blur the line between introducing the right amount & completely overhauling everything, I think it supports my point that the added context of reviewing albums on a daily basis gives the critic a different perspective & makes them see things differently, which is what separates the professional reviewer from your average user on "YooToob". & in a sense, that's kind of why anyone can call themselves a critic nowadays - because now that we can listen to pretty much any album for free on Spotify, Apple Music, or YouTube, it's much easier to get to that state of being able to constantly experience something new, which adds to that "critic" perspective.
Now, do I think people should blindly follow critics' opinions without questioning anything for themselves? No, of course not, but that's not what they intend (or at least I hope so). I remember hearing a critic (I think it was theneedledrop) say that what he wanted his audience to do was watch the videos, then go listen to the album themselves, formulate their own perspective (though still acknowledging his points in the review) & then go support the artist if they enjoyed their work. & I agree with this wholeheartedly. A critic is only there to give another perspective to consider your judgement of the music from. If people are too blindsided by reviews to form their own opinion, that's their problem, but the intent is to form your own opinion while still considering the points the critic makes. & again, with the ease of access of music nowadays, I don't feel like that's too unlikely of an action to occur anyways.
TL;DR The position of a professional critic gives them their own perspective due to the sheer amount of music they listen to, but at the end of the day, that's all they're their to do - to give a perspective that the audience can ponder when they listen to the music itself. & just because they're not the be all end all of what you should think doesn't mean they have no purpose.
That's a false dichotomy
& false dichotomies are dumb
ok bye