The question presupposes that people had more trust in experts earlier, which I will accept, however there is a nice rant by Engels in the introduction of Origins of the family about elitist sociology professors a hundred years earlier. Furthermore the trouble with predictions as sources is, that interpretation enters both at distilling the essence of the prediction, and at interpreting the time the prediction is about. Consider:
A report commissioned by the National Science Foundation and made public today speculates that by the end of this century electronic information technology will have transformed American home, business, manufacturing, school, family and political life.
The report suggests that one-way and two-way home information systems, called teletext and videotex, will penetrate deeply into daily life, with an effect on society as profound as those of the automobile and commercial television earlier in this century.
Should we interpret "teletext" and "videotext" generously as the internet, or should we interpret it as the technologies that the authors had in mind, that is centralized systems like AOL? Additionally, the report talks about effects of being bound to a "terminal" which we can interpret as a desktop computer, should we therefore claim that the report only talks about "the end of this century," and we should ignore it, after the widespread adoption of smart phones and mobile internet?
The same issues appear again, and more directly applicable to your question:
''On the other hand, because of the complexity and sophistication of these systems, they create new dangers of manipulation or social engineering, either for political or economic gain. Similarly, at the same time that these systems will bring a greatly increased flow of information and services into the home, they will also carry a stream of information out of the home about the preferences and behavior of its occupants.'' Social Side Effects
(ibid)
Here we can "complexity and sophistication" do the heavy lifting and claim that platforms like Facebook and machine learning algorithms are certainly complex and sophisticated and have a relevant effect. However, I would read it as a warning of a directed attack by the propaganda arm of AOL (note by the way, that at the time AOL was called Control Video Corporation and you could use a dial-up modem to rent a game from them) and therefore it is clearly not applicable.
Another issue would be, that some interpretations would need a discussion of the mechanism at work in the present and would therefore violate the 20 year rule:
The sophisticated, interactive advertising and customized consumer information databases available online also raise issues of increased consumer vulnerability to advertising techniques. These techniques may give advertisers an unfair advantage, at least until users develop an awareness of how to use this new technology.
Cameron, Glen T.; Curtin, Patricia A., Electronic Newspapers: Toward a Research Agenda., 1995
In this case I am tempted to argue that here the mechanism for discounting experts is spot on, however that is basically a prediction about future historical research.
On the other hand, there was certainly a anarchic techno-utopianism present in the 1990ies.
[..]3. The System must impose its truth upon us so that it can rule. The government needs us to follow it blindly. For this reason, we live in an informational eclipse. When people can only acquire information from the government, they cannot distinguish right from the wrong. So the lie becomes a truth – truth, fundamental to everything else. Thus, leaders control with lies and ordinary people have no notion of what is true and follow the government blindly, trusting it.
The Hacker ethos at that time was certainly egalitarian in a way that discounts formal credentials, but rather in a sense of anybody can become an expert in anything thanks to free information rather than discounting actual expertise, though I suspect they would be quite horrified to see the state of online discussion today. For this I strongly suspect that the most straightforward way to look for relevant sources were discussions about Wikipedia, which was founded in 2001 and at the time there was a lot of discussion about the merits of an editorial process versus the merits of crowd sourcing, however these discussions will only become available in a few years to AH.
In conclusion, people in the 1980ies and 90ies were certainly aware that a global computer network will change how society interacts with information, and some people were looking forward to a time were free information would free us from institutional expertise. However predictions are at a severe disadvantage compared to history, since the past does not need to make sense.