Twitter to Increase Tweet Character Limit to 4,000, Elon Musk Says

[uniquexoxo]

Twitter will eventually increase its character limit from the current 280 to 4,000, the company's new CEO, Elon Musk, has confirmed on Twitter.

In reply to a question whether rumored plans for Twitter to increase the character limit to 4,000 were true, Musk responded "Yes," without providing additional information. Twitter originally had a character limit of 140 before it was increased to 280 in 2017.

The exact details of the increase in character limit are not yet known, but previous reports and tweets by Musk suggested Twitter may make it easier for users to break up long chains of texts into multiple tweets part of a thread. It seems that an increase to 4,000 characters would eliminate that idea, and users could simply post longer blocks of text in single posts.

Twitter announced over the weekend that it plans to relaunch its Twitter Blue subscription service on Monday, which will offer users a verified blue checkmark and other perks such as the ability to edit tweets and upload higher-resolution 1080p videos. Twitter Blue will relaunch with a higher price of $11/month for iPhone users after Musk criticized Apple's 30% commission taken from in-app purchases.

Article Link: Twitter to Increase Tweet Character Limit to 4,000, Elon Musk Says

but twitter was created as a micro blog….

 

[Arran]

... Is Twitter even relevant anymore?

I don’t think so. It’s slowly dying! ☺️

Social media platforms come and go. Like fashion: They appear, they're on fire, they fade.

Hats off to Dorsey: He sold Elon a warehouse-full of last-season's cerulean blue sweaters, right before they hit the clearance bin! Nice exit strategy.

 

[Bento.Box]

Sadly, I think some people actually believe that nonsense. But Twitter isn’t a free speech platform. It’s a private company.

And as a private company, it's important that they actually have active users on it.
Banning and shadowbanning everybody and their dog for ideological reasons no sane person cares about, is simply bad for business, and those people who are now whining about their safe space being invaded by the public simply don't make up for it, as the past has shown (get woke, go broke). Twitter simply wasn't profitable and grossly overstaffed.

Personally, I haven't used twitter in the past, but I'm willing to give it a chance. 4k characters is not really much (a DIN A4 page of text contains around 4800 characters max and is read quickly), but it allows for people to better express themselves.
Normally, that would be the domain of websites and blogs, but those have become so defunct in recent times that I fully understand why people are not surfing anymore, but trying to get their news off apps and social media.
So for example, I started a list of what's going on in spaceflight (and here I'm not even following MusK) and after I click on that view, I instantly get the information I'm currently interested in, together with related comments. And I don't even have to press "read more" to read a paragraph. It's far from not perfect, but that's what I would normally have expected from professional news sites - a web app with filters, topics, a comment pane side by side and some web design that uses more than 1/4 of the screen without having constant popups hiding the article text. So clearly, there is a use case here.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

And as a private company, it's important that they actually have active users on it.

Even more import, for it to have active users, it needs to have active users.

Banning and shadowbanning everybody and their dog for ideological reasons no sane person cares about, is simply bad for business, and those people who are now whining about their safe space being invaded by the public simply don't make up for it, as the past has shown (get woke, go broke).

It wasn't for ideological reasons though, it was to stay compliant with the law and not give hate speech a platform. Hate speech is against the law. Just look at Kanye West, he was allowed to come back, well, that didn't last long. Many more are way more subtle than that antisemitic. It keeps active users and advertisers away.

Twitter simply wasn't profitable and grossly overstaffed.

Not profitable, definitely, and most organizations are overstaffed. But sadly, moderation, especially moderation in many languages, takes countless people.

Personally, I haven't used twitter in the past, but I'm willing to give it a chance. 4k characters is not really much (a DIN A4 page of text contains around 4800 characters max and is read quickly), but it allows for people to better express themselves.

Oh dear, so you didn't user Twitter when it had its USP tweets, but now you want long essays? Dude, you never even used Twitter, by your admission. Why not use the Medium and comment and discuss there?

Normally, that would be the domain of websites and blogs, but those have become so defunct in recent times that I fully understand why people are not surfing anymore, but trying to get their news off apps and social media.

LOL Just think about that for a moment, and you want to have the same happen to Twitter that you haven't used before.

So for example, I started a list of what's going on in spaceflight (and here I'm not even following MusK) and after I click on that view, I instantly get the information I'm currently interested in, together with related comments. And I don't even have to press "read more" to read a paragraph. It's far from not perfect, but that's what I would normally have expected from professional news sites - a web app with filters, topics, a comment pane side by side and some web design that uses more than 1/4 of the screen without having constant popups hiding the article text. So clearly, there is a use case here.

You've just describe lots of blogging platforms already, a really bad idea. Especially when you don't have to click read more. Now imagine you aren't using a really big screen.

 

[Bento.Box]

It wasn't for ideological reasons though, it was to stay compliant with the law and not give hate speech a platform. Hate speech is against the law. Just look at Kanye West, he was allowed to come back, well, that didn't last long. Many more are way more subtle than that antisemitic. It keeps active users and advertisers away.

Not really. How many people does the local post office employ to look through your letters? And your cellphone provider to tap into your calls and check if they are "compliant"?

It's neither mandated, not does it provide value to the users. The internet was definitely better in the 90ies, when freedom of speech was still deemed important.

It's only activists who are afraid of being criticised that promote all this censorship. And they are not worth catering to in terms of revenue.

You've just describe lots of blogging platforms already, a really bad idea. Especially when you don't have to click read more. Now imagine you aren't using a really big screen.

But we are not in the 90ies anymore, with 14" 640x480 VGA screens. Nowadays, every screen is big. Even a tiny tablet is capable of doing FHD. Nobody wants to click every few seconds to read more. Imagine having to do that in a traditional book or newspaper. You fold it out and only 1/4 of the newspaper contains an article. You need to remove the glued on cookie advertisement that somebody glued on and after reading the first few lines, you need to fold out the rest of the article, origami style.

 

[geartau]

It has the potential of solving tons of problems, yes, but it comes with its own big suite of new issues. Not one solution is the answer to it all, and especially not in this context where it is running on their own bare metal.

sure, never said there is one solution for all.

 

[Scoob Redux]

The internet was definitely better in the 90ies, when freedom of speech was still deemed important.

"Freedom of speech" is granted by the Constitution, and prevents the government from abridging speech (except in very narrowly defined circumstances).
That has absolutely zero to do with Twitter or any other private company. A corporation cannot, by definition, abridge your "Freedom of speech". What they can do is suppress your speech, block your speech, deny your speech, or anything else they want to do on their platform, whenever it suits them.

 

[bradl]

"Freedom of speech" is granted by the Constitution, and prevents the government from abridging speech (except in very narrowly defined circumstances).
That has absolutely zero to do with Twitter or any other private company. A corporation cannot, by definition, abridge your "Freedom of speech". What they can do is suppress your speech, block your speech, deny your speech, or anything else they want to do on their platform, whenever it suits them.

Exactly. So when a person like Musk cries "freedom of speech" on his own private property (or on the platform of a business he owns), that definition of "freedom of speech" is arbitrary, as he is the final say of what that "freedom of speech" entails. Case in point: Musk deleting tweets of videos of him being booed at Dave Chapelle's show.

Musk stews in his own hypocrisy, making everything he is grandstanding about a crock.

BL.

 

[wanha]

It was the core value prop

He's created an exodus of enough scale that any value is diminishing rapidly

I tend to agree

 

[Bento.Box]

"Freedom of speech" is granted by the Constitution, and prevents the government from abridging speech (except in very narrowly defined circumstances).
That has absolutely zero to do with Twitter or any other private company. A corporation cannot, by definition, abridge your "Freedom of speech". What they can do is suppress your speech, block your speech, deny your speech, or anything else they want to do on their platform, whenever it suits them.

I don't care how you interpret it. It doesn't change the fact that a company self-censoring their own plattform does not add value to their users and content providers but generates a lot of unnecessary cost. And that's what a company has to think about, not argueing with their clients if they are legally in the right to do so.

It's funny how many people here are upset just because Elon Musk changed Twitters rules. So much emotional investment. We will see if he is successful or not. Some of his ventures are great (e.g. SpaceX), others are utter crap (e.g. Hyperloop). I have my popcorn on standby, as I have no stakes and nothing to loose .

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Not really. How many people does the local post office employ to look through your letters? And your cellphone provider to tap into your calls and check if they are "compliant"?

You letter doesn't broadcast to the world for everyone to see. Same with the mobile phone technology. Laws and powers have to be followed to intercept and ultimately intervene. And those that facilitate broadcast actually have to abide by laws as well, no different than other broadcast media.

It's neither mandated, not does it provide value to the users. The internet was definitely better in the 90ies, when freedom of speech was still deemed important.

Not really you are mixing things up and drawing conclusions without understanding the context. The internet was the same, the legal system just wasn't ready for it, nor was the tooling. Broadcasters using whatever media have always had these kind of restrictions, but they have always been pirate broadcasters on any media as well.

It's only activists who are afraid of being criticised that promote all this censorship. And they are not worth catering to in terms of revenue.

You really don't understand history, don't you. You couldn't be further away from the truth. The right to freedom of speech has never included the right to spread hate, racism, antisemitism, you name it. It is a shame that it is required to legislate for such matters, as a few in society can't behave themselves.

But we are not in the 90ies anymore, with 14" 640x480 VGA screens. Nowadays, every screen is big.

Not really, 1920×1080 and 1366×768 are the most popular screen sizes. As you can see, they are wider than they are tall. Neither resolution allows for 4,000 words to be displayed at that height unless there is no word wrap and one maximized the browser to the screen, then just about 1 may fit. And that is without any paragraphs, headings, images etc. It is a design no one with experience in UX design would come up with.

Even a tiny tablet is capable of doing FHD. Nobody wants to click every few seconds to read more. Imagine having to do that in a traditional book or newspaper. You fold it out and only 1/4 of the newspaper contains an article. You need to remove the glued on cookie advertisement that somebody glued on and after reading the first few lines, you need to fold out the rest of the article, origami style.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I don't care how you interpret it. It doesn't change the fact that a company self-censoring their own plattform does not add value to their users and content providers but generates a lot of unnecessary cost. And that's what a company has to think about, not argueing with their clients if they are legally in the right to do so.

Have you ever started you own company? You won't go very far if you think you don't have to follow the law. What an odd thing to say.

It's funny how many people here are upset just because Elon Musk changed Twitters rules. So much emotional investment. We will see if he is successful or not. Some of his ventures are great (e.g. SpaceX), others are utter crap (e.g. Hyperloop). I have my popcorn on standby, as I have no stakes and nothing to loose .

 

[Bento.Box]

You letter doesn't broadcast to the world for everyone to see.

Internet is point to point, not broadcast.

The internet was the same, the legal system just wasn't ready for it, nor was the tooling.

Not really. Legal system was there before, but the laws changed dramatically in the past decades.

Broadcasters using whatever media have always had these kind of restrictions, but they have always been pirate broadcasters on any media as well.

See above. Internet has nothing to do with broadcast.

You really don't understand history, don't you.

Blablabla, you are not really addressing my argument.

Not really, 1920×1080 and 1366×768 are the most popular screen sizes.

Not really. 1920x1080 is FHD. Those are the older screens. 1366x768 is kind of an odd format (and also very old). Before FHD, 1280x1024 (5:4) was popular, and some 1600x something resolution. That was over a decade ago.

Neither resolution allows for 4,000 words to be displayed at that height

4k characters fit comfortably on a DinA4 page. I usually put 2 DIN A4 pages side2side (two page view in acrobat reader) when reading PDFs.

It is a design no one with experience in UX design would come up with.

Webdesigners suck at UX design. Especially newspages. I'm not sure what you are trying to defend here. The stuff out there is really ridiculous. That's why Twitter has a good chance of grabbing a piece of the news market. It already doesn't look that abysmal.

Again, emphasis on chance. It was ****** before, Elon Musk bought it for a ridiculous price. He's rich enough to do that for ***** and giggles.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I honestly wonder how some people manage to breathe by themselves. 🤷‍♂️

 

[Arran]

Can't wait to see how Elon screws this one up.

He should stick to mechanical, aeronautic and electrical engineering. He seems to get all those: Inanimate objects that behave predictably.

As for social engineering? Twitter? In over his head. Clueless.

 

[enterthemerdaverse]

He should stick to mechanical, aeronautic and electrical engineering. He seems to get all those: Inanimate objects that behave predictably.

As for social engineering? Twitter? In over his head. Clueless.

He’s not an engineer anyway. Barely knows how his own products work and uses science fiction stolen from Total Recall as his product roadmaps.

 

[webkit]

"Freedom of speech" is granted by the Constitution, and prevents the government from abridging speech (except in very narrowly defined circumstances).
That has absolutely zero to do with Twitter or any other private company. A corporation cannot, by definition, abridge your "Freedom of speech". What they can do is suppress your speech, block your speech, deny your speech, or anything else they want to do on their platform, whenever it suits them.

Exactly. So when a person like Musk cries "freedom of speech" on his own private property (or on the platform of a business he owns), that definition of "freedom of speech" is arbitrary, as he is the final say of what that "freedom of speech" entails. Case in point: Musk deleting tweets of videos of him being booed at Dave Chapelle's show.

Musk stews in his own hypocrisy, making everything he is grandstanding about a crock.

I think some people may be talking about two different things here. Yes, the First Amendment is specifically about government actions but some also use "free speech" (or lack of) to describe private company actions or policies regarding employee, user, etc. speech.

On platforms like Twitter, when someone talks about "free speech" they are (or should be) talking about the ability to freely post/tweet comments without being unfairly censored.

 

[seek3r]

that's how they appeared to do it before elon took over. again, twitter was hardly stable before elon came in.

I hadnt seen the fail whale in a loooong time, nor had most other folks, that's why there was a flood of memes of "the resurrection of the fail whale" when Musk bought Twitter. Core services at Twitter had been pretty stable for a quite a while.

kubernetes solves a ton of ops problems.

Those 7 words are doing a lot of work right there. For workloads that benefit from it sure, it solves a lot of problems. It also lets you *mask* problems for devs, a pattern a friend likes to call "defensive sysadminning", since you can mask lack of performance, uncaught exceptions and crashes, memory issues (hi Java in Docker, especially older apps that are just bundled into a container and not container aware), etc with scaling. It doesnt solve everything, it adds other complications, it requires serious consideration on isolation of resources, RBAC settings, and state management, etc. It's not one size fits all, and it requires a fair amount of work to both operate and optimize for on large projects.

And all that's assuming the app in question benefits from k8s. Not everything is microservices in light containers. Some things don't work well there. Use the right tool for the right job.

I love k8s, I really do, for orchestrating containerized workloads it's fantastic, but it's not a panacea that removes needs for ops staff. In my experience it doesnt drop your need for ops staff at all, just lets us work differently when it's applicable. It's optimization for scaling and ease of orchestration, not for streamlining ops staff.

It also typically requires us to workshop the services devs through using it right now. Packaging and orchestration layers come in many flavors and containers and k8s are still relatively young, devs don't know how to optimize for it in many cases. Even defining the deliverable across multiple teams can be frustrating (services dev: "what do you mean I should be writing a helm chart? What is that? I just do kubectl apply -f right now on my stackoverflow supplied deployment yaml, can't you do that in prod??" or "what do you mean you have to have a process for managing secrets, I just shoved 'em all in my container in a file" or etc ).

Also, something I've found, in many ways k8s isn't radically different from orchestrating piles of stateless nodes like I did on the HPC side years ago. What's old is new again.

 

[normwood]

New features aside, twitter web app is much faster for me these days.

It never lags for me anymore….because I deleted my account and the app.

 

[supremedesigner]

False. Mastadon has instances. Anyone can run an instance and each one has their own owners and mods.

There’s no “Mastadon team” banning people from signing up or starting an instance.

Learn how the internet works.

Wrong. I got an email from Masadon because their feelings got hurt when I disagreed with their post:

Some of your posts have been found to violate one or more community guidelines and have been subsequently removed by the moderators of universeodon.com.

I know how the internet works, do you? Probably not.

 

[seek3r]

Here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1589413167775756288

Oh, by the way, this ^ is the source.

The owner who's tweeting out vaccine misinformation is claiming twitter's gonna be a reliable "truth" source? Define "reliable"? Reliably bad?

 

[seek3r]

It depends on which advertising - the COVID advertising is gone, which is about time. The other advertising, like Apple, is back on Twitter. So?

What COV19 advertising? You mean the general spike during COV19? Sure, but that had passed before Musk even made his bid to buy Twitter.... As for Apple, Apple never said they left, Musk did. He also said a lot of other things that don't seem to be rooted in reality.

Meanwhile Twitter Keeps Missing Its Advertising Targets as Woes Mount

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Wrong. I got an email from Masadon because their feelings got hurt when I disagreed with their post:

Some of your posts have been found to violate one or more community guidelines and have been subsequently removed by the moderators of universeodon.com.

I know how the internet works, do you? Probably not.

LOL You better read again with what you just wrote as the clue is very clearly in your answer...

But allow me to point it out, universeodon.com does not equal Mastodon, it may be part of the Mastodon federated network but their moderators aren't Mastodon moderators. It is actually one of the more relaxed servers with no vetting, so if you've broken their simple rules https://universeodon.com/about you are rather special...

 

[enterthemerdaverse]

Wrong. I got an email from Masadon because their feelings got hurt when I disagreed with their post:

Some of your posts have been found to violate one or more community guidelines and have been subsequently removed by the moderators of universeodon.com.

I know how the internet works, do you? Probably not.

If ”someone from Mastedon” had to email you then your posts must have been really vile.

Learn how to use the internet properly. Don’t say things online that you wouldn’t say to someone’s face IRL.

 

[bradl]

I think some people may be talking about two different things here. Yes, the First Amendment is specifically about government actions but some also use "free speech" (or lack of) to describe private company actions or policies regarding employee, user, etc. speech.

On platforms like Twitter, when someone talks about "free speech" they are (or should be) talking about the ability to freely post/tweet comments without being unfairly censored.

That isn't free speech. Again, who is the arbiter of said censorship? Right now, that arbiter is Musk, and he surely doesn't let posts/tweets/comments stay without being unfairly censored. Again, case in point: Musk himself deleting tweets of him being booed at Chapelle's show over the weekend. In short, "rules for thee, but not for me." But while yes, it is a private company which can do whatever they want on their platform, he can not go about grandstanding on "free speech" while not only censoring what he doesn't like, but personally censoring what he doesn't like about him. It is duplicitous and hypocritical, and deserves to be called out on it each and every time until he changes that stance.

BL.