I think it's like this. You've got a nice neat filesystem that you understand. There's /usr, /bin, /var, /etc, and so on, and you know what they're all for (well, kinda - maybe there's some stuff in /usr that should really be in /bin and /etc is a bit random and...) but it works, and when you do ls -l / you see a nice neat list that has looked the same for 35 years and that comforts you and you recognize it. I know this. This is a UNIX system.
And then one day you install a new update of your ICANN package and all of a sudden when you do ls -l / you see /Documents and /Photos and /Music and /Google and /Ads (where the hell did that come from?), and suddenly it isn't so familiar any more. Someone took your nice neat system which was good enough for Kernighan and Ritchie and RMS and Linus and everyone and they... just figured they'd ignore it.
I think the feeling techies get is just that there was a reason for that old approach. I can mount /bin from shared network storage and /usr from a workgroup server and okay I never actually do that on my MacBook Pro but that's why it's like that and it's important to keep it like that in case... I ever find myself running a timeshared college computer network on a PDP11 and I need it to work just the same as my MacBook, okay?
And we have the same feeling about the TLD system. We were trying to keep that top level directory tidy, in case... you know, in case we needed to use it for something important. And we don't think branding is important.
Unfortunately that ship sailed a long time ago. The DNS system is all about branding, and so we don't really get to use it for important things, like security, or partitioning, or delegation. We can futz around the edges with things like using in-addr.arpa for reverse DNS lookups (but what the hell is using a .arpa address if not hipster techie branding, anyway?), but the majority of the DNS hierarchy? Forget about it. Bit.ly is not actually in Libya.
Top-level domains were the one level where names were purely descriptive - you could generally trust that they referred to what they said (.ly was well and truly owned by the government of Libya, whatever it decided to do with it, and .org is for non-profit orgs). Domain names under them were clearly understood to refer to specific organizations - wine.com is usually understood to be some organization, not an authority over all wine.
Now you have things like .wine, and there's suddenly a question - does this represent the abstract concept? Or some specific wine-making trade group? And which one? And is it clear to users what this imprimatur means? Do we trust ICANN to make this kind of decision, which is much more subjective and opinionated than the ones it traditionally has had to make when deciding who to give a TLD to?
Except .org was already free to use by anyone (including for-profit companies, e.g. craigslist.org) and there was .net, which wasn't descriptive in the least, and .info which is even weirder than .net.
What you had was an illusion of meaning, and the new gTLDs killed it. Good riddance.
Well, what's interesting about the ccTLDs is that their "meaning" was purely organizational, but very clear-cut - you could trust that .us was under the ultimate authority of the US government, and that .ly was under Libyan control, no matter how ridiculous their policy for granting those domains was.
But yeah, I think bit.ly and friends really messed up a lot of the logic people expected from the DNS.
Yes, TLDs should be opposed, for lack of a better reason we would need to change the way we look at domains! Earlier it was simple. google.com, facebook.com now it is weird com.facebook, it would feel as if the web has become a java namespace :D :P
and I think java namespace conventions need to be changed after this :P
I think it's because it's kind of fragmenting the name space. Now instead of having to remember one thing (the domain name) you might have to remember two.
