I think the article makes two distinct and contradicting points. On the one hand, Twitter is home to cliques. These seem to be closely knit communities that amplify each other&#x27;s voices (like activists, gamers, feminists, and academics). On the other hand, Twitter is full of abuse. Which one is it? The cliques (or the &quot;ists&quot; in the author&#x27;s lingo) clearly find enough value in the platform to remain. Presumably they do not abuse each other within the group. &quot;Everyone else seems to have left in a hurry.&quot; So we are talking about some kind of unaffiliated audience that gets abused by small cohesive communities? It is a strange logic that is not spelled out clearly.