>Simply "sheep effect" + ignorance.

>People start to see colorful webapps and go for them without thinking.

Don't describe common users as ignorant sheep or children who grasp at software because of the colors.

The rest of your comment is fine but we don't need any more elitism here.

While obviously hyperbole, it can be helpful to design for the common (often the lowest) denomonator. We don't and shouldn't demonize 'idiot-proofing', nor discount its utility. Sure, the 'sheeple' meme is cliche, but apropos.

Compare classic unices to Windows/OSX: in class system you have to learn, you can't go further without, but if you learn you grow, your comfort augment, you can afford more thing in less time and ease. In Windows/OSX etc initial learning curve is't shorter and easier, but you can't grow. All the rest of your life remain in that's initial limited state, always depending on "expert" for anything.

That's the difference between trying (and regularly fail) to be idiot-proof and trying to say "hey guys! You have to learn! It's easy, a bit long, and we can help, that's the path".

Any of us "born ignorant" and after (hopefully) learn, it's not elitism, IMVHO is realism: masses completely miss IT education (not in school programs) and learn from what they have got; they have got colorful UI from media, local stores etc and that's the only thing they know.

Do not forget the ancient and still actual Internet Manifesto, old IT was open to anyone willing to learn, elitist only with people who are not willing to learn.

Commerce use those people and common ignorance as a way to spread, impose a system nice for making money. In few countries, most anglophone, they manage to tweak the pre-exsisting culture of respect to create a "right to be ignorant" and "prize of ignorance" simply just to win there, in other countries they choose other paths like "comfort" (buy from us and all work without study or setup effort) or "need of expert" etc. It's elitism say "masses can't learn", it is not saying "masses are ignorant" (NOT in an insulting sense), that's simply a truth and since is not what most people describe as a good thing we have to remark and fight it, trying to avoid that problem make things worse and we have plenty of real life proof.

Why should one need an IT education in order to communicate over the web? Computing is used by literally billions of people.

I much prefer modern forums to usenet. And I'm sitting on a whole bunch of CS degrees.

Because IT for the masses is not a game anymore. In nearly all countries of the world you need to get a license witch means prove you know how to drive before get a car, a plane, a motorbike etc, in nearly any countries you have to attend schools before being "adult" simply because we need to have a certain common knowledge ground for ourselves and for live in society.

While I understand your point, to me this seems like elitism and lack of empathy for less technical users.

When you teach something to your child do you lack of empathy it you say "hey child you have MANY thing to learn, let's start, will be a nice journey" instead of saying "hey child, your a king, do whatever you want" and make him suffer anytime things does not work because he or she is not a king?

IMVHO this is the problem of modern school systems, in the past they teach, they form thinking peoples, now they form only Ford-model workers, at any level, they do what they can to avoid people learn "the big picture", became autonomous thinker.

You lack empathy if you teach your child to enjoy the things you enjoy instead of helping them find what they truly love. Maybe the child doesn't care about any of that Usenet stuff and may prefer to use reddit or Snapchat.

Or perhaps the child won't be interested in any of that and will gravitate towards something else entirely, like playing music or playing sports.

The role of a parent is to initiate the child to the world. Past a certain point, the parent must take a step back and realize the child is a human being with it's own set of preferences and ambition. That doesn't mean the child is a king, but if the child is not interested in something, then what can you do?

A parent have to let child discover the world and it's own path, BUT and is a big but, it also have to teach what the child needs to live in our society.

If not, why at schools we teach geography, math, mother language, sexual education, civil education, ... I'm pretty sure not all children are interested in all this fields. Of course a good teacher do it's best not only to merely transfer knowledge but also to create interest and that's a really difficult task.

Now I have no doubt that a typical child grow up in contemporary society is more interested in smart-devices and colorful webapps instead of PCs and text-based stuff, it's up to a serious parent who know the tech to create interest and tell the child why smart devices are not good stuff and so webapps. This of course does not means train the child as an IT professional if he or she is not interested in that, but give enough knowledge to protect himself from actual society trends. Not much different than saying to be careful with adult stranger, to be careful when crossing road, swim at the sea etc. Maybe not exactly pleasant but that's the life.