[honestcoyote]

>The larger issue here is why are we letting people who are aging act like curmudgeons and secondly, why do we give in so readily to nostalgia pieces?

We do so because change isn't always good. This is one of the most frustrating things about working in the tech sector: the erroneous assumption that all change is good and anyone who disagrees is an "aging curmudgeon".

No, we shouldn't be shaming it. Any change or new system that's worth anything will be able to stand up to questioning. And any change, even the very good ones, will possibly have unpleasant side effects. It's really ok to discuss these things.

In this particular case, it's good to discuss whether or not diversity of content will suffer when a small number of sites are the gatekeepers. It may be that the centralization of the web will provide better discoverability and visibility to a wide variety of authors. Or it may be that the content is increasingly homogenized and the number of voices are reduced. And it may be that the few all-powerful gatekeepers are more vulnerable to pressure from outside forces who want to censor certain content. Or perhaps not.

Why would you be so concerned about having such a discussion?