In response to your header question, Id like to point out that no one can ever learn all the information that exists, even without rationalizing it. If you tossed in rationalizing then, well, its far too much still. And that is if we quit discovering new things as a society. The question of pace is moot, since the shear quantity of information is too much for any one person to learn in a lifetime anyway.
One of the biggest problems with the internet is not the lack of information, its the lack of accessibility. Information isnt organized. Search results turn up false information, superfluous sites and pages (you ever see that Bing.com commercial?), etc. And the stuff you can find is redundant. Nothing is ever explained on the internet in simple terms to allow for rationalizing: you either find trivial facts written in expert-vocabulary, or expert facts too advanced for the layman to understand, or you find the exceptionally trivial facts which only waste your time. Sites exist where your only options are rereading garbage you already knew when you were five, and reading new facts you cant understand because the language is too complicated. There are sites out there written in such of a technical manner, that you'd already have to be an expert in the field to understand it - which begs the question why the page was even written in the first place: experts wouldnt need it and laymen cant understand it - and you have no recourse, no option to rectify the problem. Often times, when youre self-educating, you cant find a concise list of topics or words that are pertinent to research - I have found myself giving up on research simply because I didnt have a starting point, a single word to look up with which to begin my research. And above all, no one is taking advantage of the databasing and organization technologies that are being developed. Accessibility is further hindered by the profit scheme. You need to buy an account, or be an enrolled student, so on so forth.
Other problems exist, too. Too many sites (like math education, for example) are not well structured for education. Sometimes they dont provide proofs, sometimes they only provide examples. Few teach conceptually and most focus on practical application instead of the abstract. Few pages provide links/lists to necessary prerequisites. Sometimes proofs are circular (simply because its simple and they hope no one will catch on). Sometimes they are written in overly complicated language (which is fine if your a number theorist trying to understand addition from a new perspective, but when youre a five year old trying to learn addition its quite a different story - such pages are not segregated [wikipedia] although they should be). Sometimes youre expected to possess certain knowledge, or worse yet: consequential knowledge. Just look at the layout and its no wonder a child cant learn something as simple as math.
Math is absolute, its objective, and its conceptual (no memorizing required). People like the "subjective" too much, like Shakespeare or debate class. Why? Because they could be wrong and obscure that fact with rhetoric and no one will be the wiser. And that is the problem with everything else. People push and they preach, they are guilty of fallacy after fallacy. And for the most part people are either too bigoted to change for a convincing argument, or too stupid to see truth staring them in the face.
I see a problem in our society. People are just barely smart enough to rationalize whatever they will... but too stupid to know when they are wrong. Is the situation of polarity getting worse? Yes, I would have to say so... for reasons I just stated. Too much information, too little comprehension and too little humility. The human intellectual capacity to rationalize (and form prejudices, just the same) coupled with too little will to further ones knowledge to the aim of undermining those prejudices and rationales. We choose to learn barely enough to provide evidence to convince ourselves of exactly what we already wanted to believe. We seek proof of what we (want to) believe, and not of what we do not want to believe. If we took more time trying to argue in favor of our counter-position, we might siphon through some of the garbage and actually arrive at truth one day.