Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Twitter to Increase Tweet Character Limit to 4,000, Elon Musk Says
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Muskrat trying to allow enough for 'mein kampft'.....
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
I tend to think of it and Musk this way. I've been watching a lot of online safaris over the past couple of years and seen how animals act in nature. And there is one thing that you can trust with those animals (in this case, lions, leopards, hyenas, wild dogs, jackals, vultures, etc.): for those that are treacherous or scavengers, at least they are honest in their treachery or scavenging. They can make their own kills, but they at least are honest in stealing food from others. You can be trusted in what they do and why they do it.
That can't be said about Musk, who goes day to day (or in some cases, hour to hour) with a different modus operandi. Prime example: he bans journos for what he claims is doxxing himself and his locations, especially if said data is available publicly... yet tweets his exact location, and per his reckoning, doxes someone else at the same time, but doesn't have the proverbial testicular fortitude to subject himself to the same policies he is subjecting onto others.
Based on that, the only thing that can be trusted about Musk is that he can't be trusted; therefore losing that aforementioned character and integrity, further leading him to loss of (and lack of) respect.
BL.
Last edited:
A social media company should be held accountable for misrepresenting their product/service just as other types of companies can be.
By a definition of censorship, yes. Social media companies, forums, etc. frequently censor user content.
Twitter has been censoring content for many years and will continue to do so in the future.
Free Speech Online and on Social Media
The widespread use of the internet, and particularly social media platforms, has presented new challenges in defining what types speech are protected by the First Amendment. Social Media platforms are private companies, and we learned above that private companies are legally able to establish regulations and guidelines within their communities–including censorship of content or banning of members.
The First Amendment, Censorship, and Private Companies: What Does “Free Speech” Really Mean? - Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Learn about the specifics of the First Amendment, how censorship has been defined and challenged over time, and what all of this means to private companies and on social media.
www.carnegielibrary.org
IMO it’s not China only, but also Iran, Russia, NKorea and VPN could easily circumvent any restrictions.
But I can only agree with you that a private company couldn’t be expected to provide a platform for free speech, therefore we had IRC and Usenet in the past and I strongly believe that Mastodon and private blogs might me a nice decentralized platforms for free speech. There’s a good reason for the wannabe dictator to ban links to Mastodon profiles - he has 40 billion to lose and with his erratic behavior…
You're absolutely right--you can "call out" any company you want.
I think Pepsi gross and not refreshing as they claim. Wahhh!!
Feel better?
The issue is you are treating the Twitter platform as something more than it is that requires some special consideration.
It doesn't owe anything to anyone--tomorrow it can ban all user accounts that start with vowels or anyone who's ever tweeted the word "poopy". It doesn't have to explain why. You could say the execs would be dumb to do so, and it makes a lame company lamer, but Crystal Pepsi was a thing right?
That is not true, they have to comply with rules and regulations and can't discriminate. Sure, they don't have to explain why because they aren't allowed to do that in the first place.
Elon is playing very silly games, but smartly as he stays just about on the right side of the line, or changes his mind again by the time the regulator wake up as they are always slow. What is just plain dumb is his supporters excusing him, and allowing him to rewrite history when he does so. He is having “you” all for fools…
This is not simply about not liking a particular product. It's about calling out a company that is misrepresenting a product/service in more of a non-subjective way. If Pepsi claims that Pepsi Zero Sugar has no sugar but in reality it does have sugar, they should be called out for it. If a social media company claims they don’t shadow ban accounts but in reality they do, they should be called out for it.
It does "owe" its customers (users, advertisers, etc.) to provide a product/service as claimed. No one should be in favor of companies misrepresenting its products/services and if a company is doing so, they absolutely deserve to be called out on it.
If a social media oligarch claims he’s a free speech absolutist, then bans a dozen of journos, he should be called out for it. 🥳
What rules and regulations? There is a TOS, which they can alter at a minute's notice in any way they please, with the only restrictions that they do not target the protected classes mentioned earlier. And even in this case, it is up to users to organize an argument that the change targets those classes--the company doesn't have to prove that they don't prior.
In the zero sugar case, there are importantly existing regulations and Federal agencies to address this matter from ingredient labeling (FDA), trade practices such as false advertising (FTC) and communicating those false claims on public airwaves (FCC).
No such regulations or agencies exist for internet forums. I'm not saying the behavior is moral, or that we shouldn't create such an agency, but absent changing the law you're just voicing an opinion.
They do have to follow the law when it comes to discrimination but that’s in relation to hiring, not the customer facing service.
But yeah, your overall point is dead on. People use Twitter at Twitter’s discretion. Twitter can change the rules whenever they like. They can ban anyone they choose to ban. They can allow or deny anyone service for any reason they choose. Twitter isn’t a utility. It isn’t a government service. The expectation that it will act in the public good or that it’s somehow obligated to provide a platform for speech of any kind is completely misguided and wrong.
You've got a really overstated understanding of how powerful VPNs are. I guarantee you, the issues in North Korea go beyond a lack of funds for a VPN subscription, not the least of which is that beyond the technical complications of accessing outside servers, they will torture and kill you and your extended family if they catch you using one.
First paragraph: apples to oranges. The FDA heavily regulates food labeling. If Pepsi lies on the label they break the law and will face consequences.
Second: Of course companies that behave badly should be called out for it. And that’s exactly what’s happening with Twitter. Musk is incapable of managing it in a reasonable, consistent and adult way so he’s facing some very extreme criticism and pushback. So much so that he’s talking about stepping down from Twitter leadership.
So within the law, this would be a civil case, not criminal. In a civil case, you have to start with a tort demonstrating damages. What damages could Twitter users claim?
His fabricated wealth and his low quality car company are crashing like his Starships and even if he gets a CEO for BirdChan he still owes over $1 bill interest a year. This is comedy.
I could imagine that. I was born during the years of repression in a country in Eastern Europe where an authoritarian party was the only option on ballot. Sadly everything you wrote about being tortured when dare to oppose the regime is correct. Sadly not because I didn’t think before mentioning VPN, but because it’s happening in countries which were normal before some savages took over the power.
And I also doubt that many people have the possibility to use a home computer let alone an Internet connection in NKorea, thanks to the regime.
Should be pretty easy. COVID disinformation and resulting deaths would be a good place to start.
Makes me wonder whether NASA is re-evaluating their relationship with Space-X.
Seriously? Considering you are questioning what rules and regulations it’s clear you haven’t got a clue what it is like to operate a company and provide public services. There are too many to list, and each country has their own variations. You can’t just do whatever you fancy.
Last edited:
Huh? When Twitter took any action on removing COVID disinformation, they also explicitly stated that users should get their info from medical professionals and/or public health agencies. Twitter never claimed to be dispensers of medical advice.
Companies don't provide public services--twitter provides a private webforum that, to my knowledge, is not regulated by any public agency in the USA. If I'm wrong, tell me the regulation and enforcing agency.