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 amp

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'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 "ists" in the author's lingo) clearly find enough value in the platform to remain. Presumably they do not abuse each other within the group. "Everyone else seems to have left in a hurry." 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.