I suppose it should; but the counter-balance argument is that it distorts as there is always a perverse incentive for a minority opinion to organise and argue for their policy outcome, as the rewards are shared between a smaller group.So I think there’s a counter arguement that social media provides a truly democratic platform for those who are often disenfranchised by modern democracy.
For example, it make more sense for an association of "ex-offenders" to collect and argue than for the general public to discuss sentencing. The benefits to the first group are concentrated amoungst a smaller number, and so the rewards are higher. The benefits to the second group are distributed to a larger number and this diluted.
Ideally, social media should "democratise". However, I do see a worrying "silo" effect that actually makes democracy difficult. We self-select who we talk and associate with, and are selected by the sites and channeled by predictive behaviour?
It is a reason why I like this site, as there is the potential for an argument* to test the soundness of one's assumptions and beliefs**.
*A proper argument, not this -
**And the fit birds in uniform thread.