Let me preface by saying that what I like about Twitter is that is can be used to curate a lot of news sources into a single jumping-off point.
What I hate about Twitter is their coddling of trolls and Nazis for various reasons from poor use of moderation algorithms to some of them having so many followers that the company fears holding them to the terms of their service (e.g. Jones and 45).
But there’s a downside that gets a lot less attention. Even wonderful people with the best of intentions can touch off a thread of uninformed responses. Here’s one example. John Scalzi is one of my favorite people on the planet and on the internet.
An entirely reasonable question. The subsequent responses get a few clever blood puns and jokes in. Ten comments down someone links to a source explaining the controversy the OP asks about, but it’s pretty much ignored. Now part of this is because they linked to an (excellent) podcast and people are even less likely to click over to that than a video. Understandably, since a lot of people can read much faster than normal speaking pace. Here’s an old article that goes into even more depth.
A little more recent with a different focus…
But I don’t think most people will click links at all. And that’s part of the less-discussed problem with Twitter: it’s a medium for speaking, not for thinking. It’s great for drawing attention to things, which Scalzi and the other people I follow use to great effect, but it’s terrible for actual discussions which often become toxic by sheer dint of their lack of room and time for meaningful exchange.
ETA: The aforementioned RadioLab podcast…