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

[geartau]

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.

Twitter usage spiked and reached record numbers after Elon took over.

Again, Twitter was prone to outages before Elon: https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-services-down-thousands-users-downdetector-2021-04-17/

Anecdotal experience of seeing fail whale during peak usage doesn't really say much.

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.

This doesn't really doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. I'm well aware of what Kubernetes does. So do current Twitter engineers.

 

[webkit]

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.

It may not be "free speech" from a First Amendment standpoint but, as I stated, some are using it to describe freedom to post/tweet comments without being unfairly censored. The "arbiter" of censorship on Twitter is Twitter. The problem some have is that the content apparently wasn’t being censored equally/fairly, even though Twitter was publicly saying otherwise and therefore Twitter was potentially misrepresenting the service to its users and advertisers.

 

[bradl]

It may not be "free speech" from a First Amendment standpoint but, as I stated, some are using it to describe freedom to post/tweet comments without being unfairly censored. The "arbiter" of censorship on Twitter is Twitter. The problem some have is that the content apparently wasn’t being censored equally/fairly, even though Twitter was publicly saying otherwise and therefore Twitter was potentially misrepresenting the service to its users and advertisers.

Exactly. So what does it say about "free speech" if Musk (and by extension of owing Twitter, Twitter) is censoring posts/tweets/comments? Musk can't be for "free speech" if he is censoring it himself. Again, my statement about his hypocrisy stands.

BL.

 

[Corefile]

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.

He's the world's second richest person by pure luck then?

 

[enterthemerdaverse]

He's the world's second richest person by pure luck then?

By failure of the system to address how executives reward themselves too much of their own stock, especially when they also control the board, and then overhype their company with the aid of the financial media and hedge funds.

His main company barely makes a billion dollars profit at best. It’s massively overvalued with a massive list of broken promises and fraudulent roadmaps.

Take a look at the example that has been made by others. If Steve Jobs were alive today he would be worth about $11 billion, despite owning stock in Apple and Disney.

If Jobs would have been worth $11 billion running a company that makes up to $90 billion profit a year, then there is something really wrong with someone being worth well over $100 billion running a company that barely earns a billion in profit. The system is broken.

 

[nelloismello]

Hell... most Tweeters can barely string together two sentences of text.

This actually makes me feel better about the 4000 character increase.

 

[Surf Monkey]

But is it still a "tweet" if it's 4000 characters long? Gonna have to rename the service to "Bitch-Session" or the "Crowing Karen."

No. It’s Tumbler or any number of other similar micro blogs.

 

[Surf Monkey]

It is the only social network that can actually make a comeback with the right changes to its core workings.

Is it though? Twitter is arguably the worst, most toxic platform… and it attained that reputation BEFORE Musk invited all the racists, conspiracy theorists and peddlers of disinformation back.

There are other decent things going on at Twitter besides political discourse.

Maybe. Years ago it was a legitimate platform for professional comedians and legitimate journalists. But comedians have fled the platform in droves and journalists are looking for better platforms now too. Increasingly they don’t want to be associated with a platform that allows the kinds of egregious trolling and propaganda spewing that happens there.

It is that, and people not taking things seriously and making a joke out of everything that is the problem.

Actually, it’s the lack of effective moderation that makes Twitter a ***** storm. Social media networks only work with tight moderation.

 

[Surf Monkey]

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 .

Seems like a notable lack of self awareness.

Think about where you’re posting right now. This is a MODERATED forum. Just like Twitter, it’s a private company that allows users to access its service contingent on agreeing to certain terms. You agreed to those terms when you registered here. If you break the forum rules you’ll be suspended or banned. That is NOT censorship either here or on Twitter. It’s the prerogative of the platform owners to allow or deny service to anyone they wish based on the agreed to terms.

The idea that Twitter is a platform for free speech is completely misguided and untrue. Twitter is not Speaker’s Corner where anyone can say whatever asinine thing they want to say. Mixing the concepts of free speech as guaranteed in the Constitution and the established legal framework with the nominal practices of a private company is a HUGE mistake. A mistake that Mr. Musk is very happy to let you keep making over and over again.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Oh Elon...

"Twitter has disbanded its Trust and Safety Council, a group of around 100 independent civil, human rights and other organizations. The council was formed in 2016 as a way for the social media company to tackle hate speech, self-harm, suicide, child exploitation, and other related issues.

On Monday night, the council was scheduled to meet with Twitter representatives, including the new head of trust and safety Ella Irwin. But before the meeting could even take place, Twitter informed the group via email that the council will be disbanded, according to multiple members."

Yikes 🤔

 

[Surf Monkey]

Oh Elon...

"Twitter has disbanded its Trust and Safety Council, a group of around 100 independent civil, human rights and other organizations. The council was formed in 2016 as a way for the social media company to tackle hate speech, self-harm, suicide, child exploitation, and other related issues.

On Monday night, the council was scheduled to meet with Twitter representatives, including the new head of trust and safety Ella Irwin. But before the meeting could even take place, Twitter informed the group via email that the council will be disbanded, according to multiple members."

Yikes 🤔

This is what I’m taking about. Musk play-acting that it’s about free speech is the cover story for this kind of egregiously damaging move. Twitter is doomed. No reasonable person should be involved with it at this point. And again, WHY is this even “news” on MacRumors? Twitter isn’t an Apple focused issue. Not before and especially not now. It really doesn’t deserve coverage here.

 

[webkit]

Exactly. So what does it say about "free speech" if Musk (and by extension of owing Twitter, Twitter) is censoring posts/tweets/comments? Musk can't be for "free speech" if he is censoring it himself. Again, my statement about his hypocrisy stands.

BL.

There is no such thing as 100% or absolute free speech. I think what Musk and Musk/new Twitter supporters may largely be talking about or trying to promote is "freer" speech.

 

[Jessica Lares]

Is it though? Twitter is arguably the worst, most toxic platform… and it attained that reputation BEFORE Musk invited all the racists, conspiracy theorists and peddlers of disinformation back.

Yeah.

None of us are ever going back to Facebook. The fact people use it more for news than what it was originally attended for points to the fact no one wants their core product anymore. It's the same thing with Instagram, no one wants to just look at pictures anymore.

A lot of the Gen Z people went back to Tumblr awhile back, but there's too many weird things going on there, and that gets in the way of making anything serious happen on there.

Twitter just needs to change a little to help the people who aren't using it for politics and hot takes, keep people in their own lanes, have them looking a bit more rather than endlessly jumping at people.

Anything can be toxic.

 

[bradl]

There is no such thing as 100% or absolute free speech. I think what Musk and Musk/new Twitter supporters may largely be talking about or trying to promote is "freer" speech.

While censoring speech that puts him in any bad light. That isn't free or "freer" speech. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

BL.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Yeah.

None of us are ever going back to Facebook. The fact people use it more for news than what it was originally attended for points to the fact no one wants their core product anymore. It's the same thing with Instagram, no one wants to just look at pictures anymore.

A lot of the Gen Z people went back to Tumblr awhile back, but there's too many weird things going on there, and that gets in the way of making anything serious happen on there.

Twitter just needs to change a little to help the people who aren't using it for politics and hot takes, keep people in their own lanes, have them looking a bit more rather than endlessly jumping at people.

Anything can be toxic.

Not going back to Facebook, Instagram or Twitter. They’re ALL toxic because they’re all inadequately moderated.

 

[Lioness~]

Social media had a purpose for maybe 10-15 years ago.
Today it’s just rubbish, and we don’t need it.
Google search is better if you need to find something.
Or use more specific forums with more content specifics.
Sitting and comment or read on social media is just a waste of mental energy.

But sure, everyone evolve differently, and are allowed to waste their time as they wish.

 

[SFjohn]

🤦‍♀️ at Twitter

https://twitter.com/x/status/1602032985611833344

I see: lies, bigger lies, and deep fake lies… just me. 🤷

 

[Surf Monkey]

I see: lies, bigger lies, and deep fake lies… just me. 🤷

I see a failing business model. Micro blogs aren’t new and they’ve never been especially popular. Twitter’s hook was the character limit. Cranking it up that far removes the one thing Twitter had going for it.

Just watch. A competitor will emerge and hammer in the final nail. I mean, if Musk doesn’t make it too toxic and bankrupt to continue existing at all first.

 

[Arran]

I see: lies, bigger lies, and deep fake lies… just me. 🤷

Looking on the positive side, giving the bad actors more room to express themselves means better, clearer evidence that’s harder to refute in court when a damaged party sues.

Give ‘em enough rope, basically.

 

[Arran]

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.

Well that’s true, but neither do many in his audience. Not in any real depth. So it’s easier to fake it and fool the crowd.

But run a platform that incites violence and law breaking and you’ll end up in court. And those folks mean business.

 

[Surf Monkey]

While censoring speech that puts him in any bad light. That isn't free or "freer" speech. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

BL.

“Censor” isn’t the correct word in this context. No one is being censored. Musk can do whatever he likes with his PRIVATE COMPANY. Twitter is not a utility. It is not a government site. It is not a public square. It IS a private company that offers services to users only after they agree to the terms of service.

Have you read the Twitter TOS? You might want to do that.

https://twitter.com/content/twitter-com/legal/en/tos

 

[bradl]

“Censor” isn’t the correct word in this context. No one is being censored. Musk can do whatever he likes with his PRIVATE COMPANY. Twitter is not a utility. It is not a government site. It is not a public square. It IS a private company that offers services to users only after they agree to the terms of service.

Have you read the Twitter TOS? You might want to do that.

https://twitter.com/content/twitter-com/legal/en/tos

And as I said before in this very thread, Twitter is a private company, and Musk is the arbiter of what is "free speech" on his own platform. The problem here is that he can't cry "free speech" while removing things he doesn't like. That is hypocrisy.

BL.

 

[webkit]

“Censor” isn’t the correct word in this context. No one is being censored. Musk can do whatever he likes with his PRIVATE COMPANY. Twitter is not a utility. It is not a government site. It is not a public square. It IS a private company that offers services to users only after they agree to the terms of service.

Have you read the Twitter TOS? You might want to do that.

https://twitter.com/content/twitter-com/legal/en/tos

I think "censor" is fine to use in this context as it means to suppress or delete something considered objectionable, unacceptable, undesirable, etc. It can refer to actions taken by a government or private company. Yes, Twitter in the past and now can essentially do what they want in this regard but doing so can still be labeled as censoring.

 

[enterthemerdaverse]

Yep, looks like Musk wants to sell user data and that will fall into the hands of dictators and organised crime

Twitter is considering forcing users to let the company sell their data and phone numbers to advertisers, in potential breach of Apple rules

Users might be able to opt out if they susbcribe to $8 Twitter Blue – but that would breach Apple rules on data sharing, Platformer reports.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Corefile]

By failure of the system to address how executives reward themselves too much of their own stock, especially when they also control the board, and then overhype their company with the aid of the financial media and hedge funds.

His main company barely makes a billion dollars profit at best. It’s massively overvalued with a massive list of broken promises and fraudulent roadmaps.

Take a look at the example that has been made by others. If Steve Jobs were alive today he would be worth about $11 billion, despite owning stock in Apple and Disney.

If Jobs would have been worth $11 billion running a company that makes up to $90 billion profit a year, then there is something really wrong with someone being worth well over $100 billion running a company that barely earns a billion in profit. The system is broken.

When you're the largest shareholder then you can position your own people on the board of directors. That can also be just the largest shareholder. Value of a company is what shareholders make of it buying and selling the stock. Steve didn't own Apple anymore and was merely a small shareholder. Musk is totally different and has the controlling stakes in his companies. It sounds like you don't like the system because of Musk which is fine. I have no love for him either but he controls these companies so can do what he likes mostly.