Twitter has been widely credited with influencing the 2016 US presidential election. Not because lot's of voters read tweets, but because lot's of journalists do. Many of these journalists work for traditional media, which includes TV, radio, newspapers, newsletters, etc. The sheer volume of controversial tweets generated ensured that journalists looked no further than Twitter for topics to cover. This kept the spotlight on those who understood how both traditional and social media works, and were skilled at exploiting it.
Journalists and their editors understand that controversy and outrage are good for business. CBS's executive Les Moonves was quoted in 2016 as saying, "the Trump phenomenon may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." And by now we all know that social media algorithms thrive on engagement, and there is no better tool for engagement than tweeting outrageous things. The cacophony of controversy fueled both traditional media's and new medias' business models. A win for all media - if not necessarily for democracy.