"Random people" doesn't mean "common people". It means people with no connection to the situation, or to the people involved.

On Faceobook, the only people who can flood my notifications are people have I as friends, or maybe friends of friends. On Twitter, it's everyone, including people who are just there to be abusive.

> So the common persons voice should be rate limited? Only those 'qualified' should be able to have a larger impact?

Yes, to both. To go along with what the OP was saying, the common person should have to get the attention of someone with a "professional account" in order to get their voice amplified. Of course, that's assuming "professional accounts" actually mean something and aren't handed out like blue checkmarks on Twitter.

starting to sound like a republic :)

The issue is that the people in society with the most free time seem to have the most influence on social media.

Rate limiting people so that they could only post/vote/etc once per day, for example, or perhaps amplifying the vote by the account age might work to bring more attention to more mature voices.

Mods. You say something nasty, you get banned. You make sense, you get slightly promoted.

Random person could just as well be Trump or Biden. It doesn't have to be common persons. Twitter gives too much power to anyone.