Tell me how the modern "minimalist" trend in computer icons, website design, etc. is objectively superior to what we had 10 or 20 years ago. But it's undeniably "in fashion".
They call it "Material Design" in the Android world. No multiple colors, no shading, no drop shadows, no fine details of any kind. Look at any recent Android phone to see examples of what I mean.

Here is one example -- the new one is super stylized/simplified till you can barely tell what it is.

It seems like we've come full circle, such that the "most modern" and "latest and greatest" that everyone strives for and respects is basically what we had in 1990 with Windows 3.1!

Ridiculous. I'm calling it out RIGHT NOW as ridiculous. In the future, when people are making fun of the minimalist icons and graphics of this decade, you can point out that I thought it was stupid at the time!

Look at the one on the bottom. I can't tell what half of those things even are! But those are what the highest paid digital graphics artists will put out today for your website, unless you force them to do otherwise.

When it comes to the use of symbols in our modern way of life, I can't help but think of Dr. White... Matthew might remember this particular lecture.

THE IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE
Dr. Allen White

http://www.edocere.org/articles/importance_of_language.htm

Tell me how the modern "minimalist" trend in computer icons, website design, etc. is objectively superior to what we had 10 or 20 years ago. But it's undeniably "in fashion".

What a coïnkidink!  Graphic designers for computing environments have been full of themselves for about the same "10 or 20 years".  They devise their designs with the optically sharp eyes of youth, for their own lightning-fast graphic adapters feeding luxuriously huge monitors (that means you, Rorate Cæli!), placed among ergonomic furniture in well-controlled lighting indoors.  They define "in fashion" as whatever the latest influx of designer-artist-rabble does that's self-consciously different from whatever their predecessors did, even when it violates aspects of design that were proven either beneficial or bad back when the new rabble inhabited cribs or play-pens.  Being recentists, thus smug in their ignorance, nothing that happened in computing or design before they began to hack software or hardware themselves could possibly be relevant or worth learning anymore.

[....]  No multiple colors, no shading, no drop shadows, no fine details of any kind.

And as best I can see with my aging eyes, extensive juxtaposition of eye-straining low-contrast colors, thus excessive use of medium gray, e.g.: the array of icons in your original posting.  I suppose that they blythely assume, based on consulting only themselves, that pastel-on-pastel combinations are "easier on the eyes"--or somesuch.

Why, yes, I do have strong feelings about this broad subject.  How did you guess?

Might it be desirable to move follow-ups to CathInfo's neglected but more-technical "Computers and Technology" (sub)forum?