On june 22, 2023 at 5:03 am, @FYMaxine posted art of her own take of the nostalgic internet era.
Another user, commented with the more extreme version of this proceeding argument, asking:

"How was the internet back them better if it wasn't moderated as much" (and therefore I assume safe for minorities)
& "What are you doing, to bringing it back"

At this point in social media, drawing art of the past makes you an advocate for said past, which is Absurd.
Of course this is a single view of one person and it would not be a such a big deal, if over 19 hundered other people didn't agree with it.
There are two hidden connotations within these sentences, one of them describes a group;

A: The group that uses hypercorectness to voice it's opinions with definite non-constructive content, such that it would not be considered insulting. Seemingly the act of socializing is a game for them, and in this game, you get to pick a topic, and create a counter argument within every subset, or any concept that it encompases for no reason at all, just to voice an opinion that they will probably refute in the future as it isn't even of their own.

As much as anyone can dislike such a generalization of very real people, it isn't wrong to say that corectness is better than straight up insults. But it is wrong to claim that it is only used with good intentions. A voiced opinion which is but criticizing does not impair anyone, however, What people fail to mention is that the repeated use of such opinion can more so feel like an insult. Which destroys it's whole purpose right?

That is why, this particular group fails to answer a simple argument, if the internet back then was unmoderated yet so inviting, why isn't it inviting now? I believe that that the act of being inclusive factually and contextually is driven towards by implementing rules, which limit the criticism that opposes said group. AT MOST, deeming it illegal.

The criticism that I am talking about has a scale, there is constructive criticism and destructive criticism.
Within one of these lies the answer that when implemented, can change us for the better.
It is the fact that virtue cannot be achieved efortlessly;

We do not reward people who claimed they saved lives but didn't.
We do not punish people who we didn't prove to be guilty.

AND worst of all, we do not RECOGNIZE acceptence, when it is not practiced.

Keep in mind that you can be a part of a community without being limited by their rules. As no community ever, should be considered a single entity.