This is true and I bring this up as well BUT consider this: probably less than 23% of US citizens make 90% of the important decisions for this country (the power law still holds) and if all of those people are on Twitter then OP's point still stands. I deleted Twitter about 3 months ago and it's been great. I can just focus on life and talking to my friends still on the platform I realize just how much of a bubble it really is and how most of the issues everyone gets hysterical about is just irrelevant in my life. That being said it seems to hold an insane amount of influence in the minds of journalists, business leaders, and politicians and thus it is an incredibly powerful platform.
I suppose you could say it's like the public square in that only 3 of the 10 citizens in that mythical town actually go to the square and debate/decide anything, and the rest just stay home.
But I'm not convinced the folks on Twitter truly have that much power because they have those discussions on Twitter (and most would probably have that power whether Twitter exists or not and the discussions on Twitter from those in power seem to be mostly just an extension of their other media presences). It does make some folks more accessible, and their (curated) thoughts more public in some cases.
I've spent some time recently to curate who/what I follow on Twitter to be more relevant and less hysterical (it still creeps in tho), and that has actually made me more likely to actually engage there now, as it's often with things I'm actually interested in.
What if most readers think that writers somehow represent a majority of Twitter or even the whole society? That belief, true or false, would leverage the influence of writers.
Sounds like we need to do a better job of explaining why that isn't the case (at least, that is my belief, I believe the most extreme are those most likely to be prolific on Twitter, not those with the most representative beliefs).
