Despite the paper's claims to the contrary, they most likely have the causality absolutely backward. The two accounts they analyse, AK (@_akhaliq) and Aran Komatsuzaki (@arankomatsuzaki), have
much better taste than anyone or anything else I've come across that are as prolific as they are. There's a reason lots of us ML/AI researchers follow them closely, which is that over an extended period of time we've noticed that they keep surfacing interesting and important work.
They do a much better job of it than some random reviewer, so you would not expect some other papers with the same review scores, venues, and embeddings to have the same citation counts. But this is the premise that this paper entirely relies on as the basis of the analysis, and as a result the paper fails to make a strong case.
The idea that thousands of researchers would decide to follow two particular Twitter accounts for no good reason, and would like and retweet posts from those accounts just because they're "influencers", makes no sense at all. Accounts become influencers for a reason. In this case, the accounts are not from people who are otherwise famous for some external reason -- literally the only thing they're known for is posting papers. If they weren't good at finding papers that researchers found interesting, they wouldn't get followed.
BTW, some years ago, Miles Brundage's Twitter account was the main one that researchers followed for this purpose. Nowadays he's the head of policy at OpenAI and no longer does this. But back when he did, the '@brundagebot' bot was created that tried to replicate his curation choices using an algorithm.