Troll beginners

I've reflected on the availability of computer science knowledge in the past compared to the present. I've concluded that in my memory searches for answers yielded more quality results than the present. I reflected on how many replies to quality answers tended to "clarify" the question intended some obscure environment where elegant answers simply don't exist. I remember that at first people would blame bad environments, but those questions grew popularity then people eventually started to flame about terrible environments more often more publicly. Then, the community defused those flames excusing the obscure restrictions as uncontrollable for other programmers trapped in a broken system. However complaints AS WELL AS questions involving obscure restrictions have decreased, but older sensible wisdom has gotten buried, causing me to question the deliberacy of that systemic change as well as how come moderators around the internet hadn't taken more firm stances to silence disruptive challenges posed to question answerers? Now we have a very computer science education unfriendly internet, where we once wondered why we couldn't expand the internet to educate people on every subject of human interest. We lost our utopia. Does no one remember this how I do?

>>34069 Well said. I think the current "digital consciousness" every Internet user is tuned in to is cluttered and unreliable. The overwhelming availability of information leads certainly led many to an approximate knowledge of many things. It's hard to get that knowledge the top of an search engine algorithm that favors concise spoon-feeding answers and big pretty parallax pictures. I'm pretty disgusted in how the Web has mutated over the past 10 years. The creative anarchy of the uncensored net has really been whittled to a nub by algorithms, advertisers, and the corporate tech companies that keep listening to whiny liberal arts students.

The internet was created as an instrument of power. Private in the hands of the elite, secure for its time (or so they thought) and built to exert control by the military and elite over machines and populations. For a while there it got into the hands of some bizarre academics and then random people who were clever and resourceful enough to make use of it before it was accessible or mainstream. That created a little culture, a bit of lightning in the bottle. Now it's going back to its original, intended state: centralized instrument of control. Once again it will be secured into a few monopolized walled-off claves that exist exclusively to exercise power over systems and populations. There will be virtually no culture that's not generated from the top down, imposed by the people running the system because that's what a ultramassive informational network is good for. The groups of weirdo technicians and academics are still around for now, but now that it's mainstream their number is too small for any culture of theirs to express. The "golden age" was a false quasi-stable state in a system that is innately repressive and utilized for centralized control. That's the original idea of cybernetics, after all. It won't come back, those days are gone now. And yeah you'll get more manipulative and less inspiring searches. You won't be able to dissent or find much else than mindless consumerism and state and corporate propaganda. That is what a network is really for. Maybe try ham radio.

That seems too depressing, too cynical, and too defeatist. Remember we endure a post-modern era. Eventually the era will come to an end, where we have more trustworthy institutions. Culture archived and remembered will not die. Some internet history deserves more prestigious archives. We need more internet historians + more voices reliably less wrong. One might just beget the other...