The fact that we can communicate faster has reduced the amount of actual thought behind our statements.
Prove this.
At the moment, it really feels like you're undergoing some unnecessary panic. (If this evolves into another moral panic, holyshitiwillkillmyself.) Consider this: does speaking over the phone or communicating through text messages take longer? It probably takes less time for me to walk from my front door to the phone, look up a number, and then dial it than for me to turn on my computer, wait for it to boot up, log in to X communication service to talk with Y person or submit Z content to Z' web service (after finding the bookmark/URL, going through the appropriate tabs and menus, etc.).
With the advent of the Internet, have people been able to communicate faster or is the range of communication simply greater? The rate of information being exchanged may be higher than when mail or telegraphs were the predominant forms of overseas communication, but proportional to the range at which communication has also increased. I.e. we're not communicating faster; we can exchange information at a higher rate and to a wider audience (or farther), but we haven't come up with a technology that speeds up our reading or typing or writing, or to a more extreme extent, we have not come up with a technology that allows direct transference of information with very little obfuscation, which would bypass language barriers and quite literally reduce the time it takes to communicate a certain amount of information at once.
It's clear that we can't communicate "faster," though I'll stop nitpicking and assume that you meant simply being able to express our thoughts to a larger and farther audience sooner.
Sure, people can communicate "faster" (by this I mean at a faster rate and to a wider audience), but notice what the sort of "information" you are highlighting: just looking at the Google search, the speakers appear mostly to be the kind of people of questionable intelligence that don't have much with which to speak anyway. In this sense, intelligible content might become "swamped" by meaningless content such that the proportions may, in the future, weigh more heavily on the side of meaningless garble, but altogether, you can't simply blame the change in proportions on the Internet itself. In this regard, it would be wrong (and stupid) to "regulate (the content of) the Internet," and make usage of the Internet exclusive to scholars, scientists, engineers, and similar professionals. Instead, if anything, the people who use it should be further educated to use the Internet productively. It's much easier to regulate who gets to use it than what is actually being put on it; who knows how many similar posts has been made by educated professionals who have had particularly frustrating days (since we're all human, etc.).
This sum of factors lead me to believe that you're overreacting. The Internet is not really making communication any faster than it already is (speech vs. text messages, etc.), and any influence it may have on the future of the quality of the information being communicated can probably be attributed to more people using it incorrectly, rather than the nature of it (higher rate of exchange of information and wider audience).
Seems like it's always been this way, though. Dumb people shout incoherently, now they can shout louder. And then ignoring them just keeps on going as usual.
But it's not really like that either, so whatever.
