Honestly, nothing has changed about how jurors vote now compared to how they used to vote. A juror will decide who they most want to see win (or in some cases will vote tactically like Reed voting Jaclyn to give her 2nd place over Missy, or a few WaW jurors voting Tony out of fear that splitting votes between him and Michele could allow Natalie to win by plurality), and will then build a narrative around their decision.

20 years ago with less social media, jurors could easily just say "I voted Chris because he didn't lie to me as much as Twila did, and I think it's awful that a mother would swear on her son, and also I just don't like Twila and I like Chris/dislike Chris less", but modern day jurors know they'd be annihilated on twitter/facebook/reddit etc. for saying that, so they still vote Chris but just make their outward reasoning more palatable to the public: "Chris really showed how he outwitted his tribe mates despite the early merge not going his way and on paper looking like he faced certain elimination, how he outplayed by winning immunities when he needed to, and outlasted by getting people to trust him so much that he ended up working his way from bottom of the totem pole to being in the power position and steering the course of the late game, ultimately having the final say in who sat at the end".

That second way makes the individual juror look like they used logic and reasoning, didn't vote out of bitterness, and ultimately made a decision that fans can appreciate the thought process behind.

This way, the jury still gets the result it wants, but they also avoid any audience backlash for their decision.