No, tooling and the incentives around them matter. Twitter makes it super easy to find the worst examples of the other side/take them out of context, and circulate what they said among 'your people' to get massive retweets. Twitter does this because it creates a more engaging experience. Yes, if people were perfect robots, Twitter could just be a means for people to communicate. But the incentive structure of social media, ie: what goes viral, selects for outrage. The medium is the message.
i mean, i can give plenty others that do exactly what you said. twitter is not unique and certainly not the problem.
i read his final(?) tweets and the reasons why he decided to leave twitter. and i don't think or remember him blaming the medium.
Now, within that system users can certainly be self-aware and actively abide to 'remembering the human.' Even then, this self-aware group is likely a minority.
The problem is in the way it is designed. The shortness of the tweet limits context and nuance. This makes it easy to find something to be outraged over. Now add the re-tweet that makes it easy to spread the outrage everywhere. No, Twitter is optimized for outrage and conflict.
By making highly viral communication easier, Twitter has done something equivalent to removing control rods from a nuclear reaction. The reaction is fine when it's under control, but if it reaches a certain level of intensity, then different and highly damaging behaviors can emerge.
Human to human communication inherently includes a certain amount of noise per signal transmitted. Twitter or in general social media algorithms seem to amplify the noise more than the signal since disagreement translates to higher engagement metrics than agreement. There is only so much their algorithms can do in the name of increasing relavance (i.e finding signal amidst the giant noise they help created).