I get that people have the right to vote how they see fit. What I don't get is why they think they should then be exempt from any of the consequences of that vote
I think, writ large, this is the modern problem. It's also rather defining/illuminating, although I'm not sure what it tells us.
Historically, the only people that had access to the mechanisms of mass communication as "publishers" tended to be more on the educated/wealthy side of the tracks. Even the path to power - as an councillor or MP - was bound in with that landscape. So few people had the ability to have their words propated at length, and those that did generally understood that it was an implicit privilege and chose them carefully (because it was also a precious resource, and you wouldn't waste it).
Come the internet, and all of a sudden the world+dog has access to that machinery. And because it's cheap. Because it's easy, they have no reason to understand that their words have consequences.
The worst consequence being that expression of opinion has become not only inflammatory, but worthless. Even as recently as the 90s, it took some effort to get your opinions into print, which meant it had some import.
I don't know what the answer is though. Much as I love democracy, maybe the idea of abandoning net neutrality has some merit
.
Maybe some sort of regulation/mechanism which limits people to 10 tweets a day ? I wonder what MN would look like if that regime existed. You can make 10 communications a day. Is that 10 to MN in one hit. 2 to MN, 2 to FB, 2 on Instagram, and save 4 for the random tweeting for CBB ????
I know how I'd implement it ...