Yes, but this is Internet English. Yeah, I'm (mostly) serious. There's an interesting article here which does a decent job of explaining how the two systems are actually two sides of the same coin, and why one system has not yet eclipsed the other. The article is written purely from a liberal arts perspective, and to me the issue becomes clearer when you contrast the archaic origins of each system (outdated internal logic vs. obsolete practical considerations) with the modern requirements of substantive communication on the internet.

To me there's a single example that explains everything:

To teach someone how to write a period in html markup, I must tell them to "write '.'."

Behold that entire sentence; understand why what I actually wrote for you to see that was "*"write '\.'."*," and recursively down the line "\*"write '\\\.'."\*," etc. ad infinitum. Ultimately, you can see that there is need for a new system in which both rulesets are applied simultaneously, and yet are reconciled logically by the arbitrary presumption (historically determined) of a new rule along the lines of modulating consistently between American and British rules to syntactically mark instances of the inevitably occurring logical breakdowns in each system, thus inherently restoring an overall consistent (even if it is extremely convoluted) logic. So, "Internet English," or put more scientifically, the globalization-induced reconciliation of 200 years of divergent linguistic evolution supplanting both original branches in this context. Now, one could perhaps make a strong argument that the purity of each branch is superior to the final product; but not only would said argument be entirely subjective, it would also more importantly be pretty much the ultimate act of grammar-naziism.

-Der Ubergrammarfeuhrer