The New York Times (and other outlets, I'm sure) is notorious for writing trend pieces based on the fact that two or three people the reporter knows are doing some thing. Which then often turns it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In political stories it constantly happens that someone is quoted as a man on the street, but then you look them up and they're actually the head of the state party or some such thing. It's surprising that the writer would lie about their credential but still leave their real names in.
Sure, but there is bound to be someone who sincerely believes that the person you imagined is themselves, and they will take up that mantle out of some peculiar mix of indignation and gullibility and no doubt, recruit others to their cause with your tweet as their touchstone. Belief does not subscribe to the first law of thermodynamics. It is not a preexisting condition with neatly defined boundaries. People have no need for consistency in their beliefs, or even any understanding of why they hold them or where they came from.
Point being, it is not just the systemic political issue of being for or against that SA suggests shores up the Weak Man, but their beliefs themselves which shift and flow and pop in and out of existence. The only antidote to not fall in with the politics or the belief is to maintaina sense of self doubt and empathy. (And i say that as someone who also self diagnosed with much research, but also doubts).
And even that doesn't protect you from other peoples' beliefs. Has no one read Foucault's Pendulum?
"Twitter is 90% someone imagining a guy, tricking themselves into believing that guy exists and then getting mad about it"
I think you could substitute "Twitter" with just "social media"