My best guess is, the influence of non-specialists who do research on their own, without the training to understand which papers are meaningful, which are fluff, which are wrong, and which are fraudulent.
The most informative papers are often behind a paywall, so the non-paywalled papers are biased towards these other less-informative and even wrong papers.
If someone should point to paper X, in order to correct a mistaken belief discussed in a public form (like HN), and that paper X cost $50 to read, many fewer people will read it to examine the validity of the paper in the first place - even if were correct.
While if someone points to paper Y, which supports that belief due to subtly wrong assumptions, but that paper is free to read, then many more people are likely to look at it. And without the training or experience to identify the wrong assumptions.
None of this requires our "Joe Rogan" to hide true science and research - paywalls already do that.
For him it's probably sufficient to just use a heavily-biased selection of it and/or present a heavily-distorted version of its results. (As others in the thread have pointed out, the hiding is done efficiently enough by others, i.e. the heavily-paywalled scientific journals.)
Not sure what that means? Is he hiding true science and research?