No, I don't like it mostly because I abhor most social media because it is one of the leading contributors to the "always connected, never invested, drowning in information while starving for knowledge" cancer eating away at western civilization every day. Twitter egregiously so because its format appeals to the attention deficit and reinforces their scatterbrained dysfunctions and has all the informative value of shouting in a crowded sports arena while wearing a diving helmet.
Hollering into the darkness at no-one and everyone. And then Instagram trowels on an extra layer of pretentiousness and drops the already-loose literacy requirement.
I agree with some of what you're saying. There is something of an inherent self-aggrandising, shortsighted, distracted nature to, well,
all social media. And, a not insignificant amount of Twitter is noise. I contest the idea, however, that it can't help you be invested or be a source for knowledge. Following news organisations can be useful, but redundant (go to their sites, put them on an RSS reader; I still nonetheless follow several) but following journalists can be really very awesome. They'll talk about things as they happen, possibly make mention of stuff that doesn't get put in their articles, etc. Additionally it is possible to sort out a conversation or follow people who provide amusement or interest and get something out of that.
I mean, it's like, well, anything. It can be used, abused, exceptionally good or terrible. Obviously I'm not trying to convince you to use it, but the complaints about people tweeting about their lunch or shouting about how their day is going is generally lazy, or at the least, you're just looking at the wrong people. There are plenty of people who provide interesting commentary, or content that is enjoyable.
But then, I guess my first mistake is that I'm also more optimistic about western civilization than you are.