Twitter somehow "doesn't work". It worked in the very early days, but the filtering tools just aren't there - or rather, they're not there for the average user's capability. It started out as "microblogging". Well, a blog is a destination. Sure, you can subscribe to it (if you have the know how, most don't). But back in the day, would you have subscribed to several hundred active blogs? Hell no. So it's really just like being on your own bridge over a section of a very fast flowing river, and missing nearly everything. And barely even having the time to do that.
Destinations have been heavily deprecated in favor of surge traffic. That's why even the New York Times writes clickbait titles and why RSS feeds are no longer supported by Google. Ryan Holiday pointed out that Twitter's sole claim to glory is breaking the news of Osama Bin Laden 8 minutes ahead of a White House announcement. 8 minutes.
Oh undoubtedly, but Twitter has become the conduit for other destinations. The dumb pipe. The surge happens, and everyone is off to the NYT or BBC or whatever. Is there any way to track, for example, how many of your Followers actually saw a particular tweet of yours? (Assuming they didn't click on it). So often I hear companies saying "we'll put it out on Twitter" but what is "out" in that context? Who is there? Whereas Facebook (which personally I loathe) has a far quieter, more in depth feed, and individual pages within it are far more like destinations if you're interested enough to actually go to a company page on there. I've actually tried going to corporate Twitter accounts before to get their news/information: it's impossible. It doesn't aggregate in a useful way. It doesn't look useful.
Twitter's penetration remains pathetic. Their die-off rate is also heinous. Followers are likely to be bots and traffic is easily purchased. Facebook traffic is genuine. I hate them both, but Twitter is a paper tiger.