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

[Surf Monkey]

As explained "a million times" to you, it really doesn't matter much what the TOS states it can't override the rights of the subjects, nor any laws or regulations. It is just not how it works. Using terms a '...not interested in debating in good faith' is utterly pointless and a smoke screen when you make up things like you are doing.

For one, the TOS is relevant. The reason he’s running away from it now is that he refuses to read it when its content has direct bearing on his whole argument.

For another, how’s about YOU show us EXACTLY which parts of US Code apply to regulating Twitter? You can’t just say “rights! Laws! Regulations!” and expect that to be taken as a legitimate position.

Show. The. Relevant. Regulations.

I haven’t made up anything or put up any smoke screens. I’ve been absolutely clear about my position. It’s actually you Twitter defenders who appear not to have done your homework.

 

[webkit]

You need stop digging holes. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and since you refuse to even look at Twitter’s TOS it’s very obvious that you’re not interested in debating in good faith.

It is you who has continued to "dig holes" and hasn’t been "debating in good faith.” I stand by what I’ve been saying, including comments about TOS.

Again, TOS does NOT make a company immune to laws regarding misrepresenting their product/service. TOS simply does not allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud.

Additionally, a court will not enforce unreasonable, unfair or illegal terms that are included in TOS even if the user/customer agreed to them one way or another. Further, laws/regulations in one state or country do not necessarily apply to other states or countries. TOS is not the ironclad or all encompassing agreement you seem to think it is.

 

[Surf Monkey]

It is you who has continued to "dig holes" and hasn’t been "debating in good faith.” I stand by what I’ve been saying, including comments about TOS.

Completely false. I’ll point out again that I’ve read their TOS, privacy statements and related user facing documents. It appears you’ve still done no such thing, much to the detriment of your argument.

Again, TOS does NOT make a company immune to laws regarding misrepresenting their product/service.

Cite the SPECIFIC laws, otherwise you’re just spewing hot air. Twitter is not regulated. If you think there are laws that constitute a regulatory framework around it, CITE THEM.

TOS simply does not allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud.

I never contended that it did. If you think I did feel free to quote me. When you discover you can’t you’ll begin to understand why I characterized this as a “straw man fallacy.”

Additionally, a court will not enforce unreasonable, unfair or illegal terms that are included in TOS even if the user/customer agreed to them one way or another.

Okay. What specific terms of Twitter’s TOS are “unreasonable, unfair [and] illegal”? You’re making the claim so you need to provide specifics.

Further, laws/regulations in one state or country do not necessarily apply to other states or countries.

No one has contended otherwise. I’ve simply pointed out that Twitter is incorporated in the United States and as such is primarily bound by US law. But again, if you have SPECIFIC laws in mind, CITE them.

TOS is not the ironclad or all encompassing agreement you seem to think it is.

Not a claim I made and since you haven’t read the TOS and I have I’ll be taking your absolutist commentary with zero supporting documentation with a massive grain of salt.

It’s also worth noting again that you stated this by making the extraordinary claim that Twitter was “suppressing” and “censoring” people, which is why I brought the TOS into the discussion. Now you’ve shifted to a discussion of misrepresentation and fraud. Completely different subjects that you obviously adopted in order to avoid defending your clearly false initial claims. That’s called “shifting the goal posts.”

 

[williedigital]

It is you who has continued to "dig holes" and hasn’t been "debating in good faith.” I stand by what I’ve been saying, including comments about TOS.

Again, TOS does NOT make a company immune to laws regarding misrepresenting their product/service. TOS simply does not allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud.

Additionally, a court will not enforce unreasonable, unfair or illegal terms that are included in TOS even if the user/customer agreed to them one way or another. Further, laws/regulations in one state or country do not necessarily apply to other states or countries. TOS is not the ironclad or all encompassing agreement you seem to think it is.

To defraud someone they must have a real or potential financial loss. Twitter users pay nothing to post, so cannot be defrauded by Twitter. You haven't made the basic case for how Twitter users have been harmed, much less defrauded.

The TOS basically just provides an additional level of clarity that Twitter controls all posting on the platform and takes no responsibility for anything that anyone says harming anyone else.

You should think of Twitter as a giant lawn. Twitter owns the lawn, and does not charge those who want to enter the lawn or those who want to exit the lawn. They do post some rules of behavior (TOS) for the lawn, but reserve the right to alter those at any time or take action outside the TOS. They have video cameras and microphones trained on the lawn, and they make you sign acknowledgement when you enter the lawn that they may (but are not obligated to) record your behavior on the lawn or broadcast messages into the lawn. If you disagree, you can't enter the lawn, and if you later decide you disagree, you may exit the lawn, but your behavior while on the lawn remains available for their use, because you agreed to that in the TOS.

I really don't see what's complicated about this.

 

[webkit]

Completely false. I’ll point out again that I’ve read their TOS, privacy statements and related user facing documents. It appears you’ve still done no such thing, much to the detriment of your argument.

If you actually read my comments, they have been that TOS does NOT make a company immune to laws regarding misrepresenting their product/service. TOS simply does not allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud. If you agree with this then I don't see an issue.

Cite the SPECIFIC laws, otherwise you’re just spewing hot air. Twitter is not regulated. If you think there are laws that constitute a regulatory framework around it, CITE THEM.

Plenty of companies with TOS have been charged with misrepresenting their product/service. Twitter itself was charged with misrepresenting the extent to which it maintains and protects the security, privacy, confidentiality, or integrity of any nonpublic consumer information.

Okay. What specific terms of Twitter’s TOS are “unreasonable, unfair [and] illegal”? You’re making the claim so you need to provide specifics.

When did I claim Twitter's terms were unreasonable, unfair or illegal? Again, my comments have been that TOS does not make a company immune to laws regarding misrepresenting their product/service and that a court will not enforce unreasonable, unfair or illegal terms that are included in TOS even if the user/customer agreed to them one way or another.

It’s also worth noting again that you stated this by making the extraordinary claim that Twitter was “suppressing” and “censoring” people, which is why I brought the TOS into the discussion. Now you’ve shifted to a discussion of misrepresentation and fraud. Completely different subjects that you obviously adopted in order to avoid defending your clearly false initial claims. That’s called “shifting the goal posts.”

It’s hardly an extraordinary claim. A definition of censorship is to suppress or delete something considered objectionable, unacceptable, undesirable, etc. and can refer to actions by a government or private company. Twitter has been doing that for years and will continue to do it in the future. I have not been making false claims and "shifting the goal posts."

 

[webkit]

To defraud someone they must have a real or potential financial loss. Twitter users pay nothing to post, so cannot be defrauded by Twitter. You haven't made the basic case for how Twitter users have been harmed, much less defrauded.

The TOS basically just provides an additional level of clarity that Twitter controls all posting on the platform and takes no responsibility for anything that anyone says harming anyone else.

You should think of Twitter as a giant lawn. Twitter owns the lawn, and does not charge those who want to enter the lawn or those who want to exit the lawn. They do post some rules of behavior (TOS) for the lawn, but reserve the right to alter those at any time or take action outside the TOS. They have video cameras and microphones trained on the lawn, and they make you sign acknowledgement when you enter the lawn that they may (but are not obligated to) record your behavior on the lawn or broadcast messages into the lawn. If you disagree, you can't enter the lawn, and if you later decide you disagree, you may exit the lawn, but your behavior while on the lawn remains available for their use, because you agreed to that in the TOS.

Twitter's business is not just about people having free accounts and posting for free. There are users/customers that pay/spend money to use the service including subscriptions costs, advertising costs, etc. However, my comments have largely been about companies (generic) anyway and the "protections" TOS does or doesn’t provide.

Again, TOS does NOT make a company immune to laws regarding misrepresenting their product/service. TOS simply does not allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud.

I really don't see what's complicated about this.

It's not complicated and I continue to stand by my comments.

 

[williedigital]

Twitter's business is not just about people having free accounts and posting for free. There are users/customers that pay/spend money to use the service including subscriptions costs, advertising costs, etc. However, my comments have largely been about companies (generic) anyway and the "protections" TOS does or doesn’t provide.

Again, TOS does NOT make a company immune to laws regarding misrepresenting their product/service. TOS simply does not allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud.

The TOS does not even address, much less define the commercial relationship between customers (advertisers are the only customers) and Twitter. Those advertising contracts are not public, and frankly, probably contain a clause that they are null and void if made public, willfully or accidentally, by the advertiser.

A night club may have a "dress code" or other admission policy that they administer arbitrarily. Why in the world you would think that has anything to do with their other commercial contracts (with their landlord, their liquor distributors, their employees, DJs, etc.) is beyond me.

 

[purplerainpurplerain]

Musk behavior and severe stock dumping is consistent with someone who thinks they are going to be arrested and is trying to control the information space to pre-empt action against himself. The question is what is happening behind the scene.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

For one, the TOS is relevant.

Cool, which has been my point all along. Finally, you agree and see the error of your way. Let's stop there.

 

[Samplasion]

The main thing I’ve always wanted is to be able to click a trending topic and immediately see why that topic is trending.

There are some accounts that take some topics and explain why they're trending

 

[Samplasion]

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

For what it's worth, this completely undermines the very concept of Twitter.

 

[webkit]

The TOS does not even address, much less define the commercial relationship between customers (advertisers are the only customers) and Twitter. Those advertising contracts are not public, and frankly, probably contain a clause that they are null and void if made public, willfully or accidentally, by the advertiser.

Which is why I didn't agree with some putting so much emphasis on TOS. As I stated several times, TOS does not make a company immune to laws regarding misrepresenting their product/service. TOS simply does not allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud.

 

[webkit]

For what it's worth, this completely undermines the very concept of Twitter.

I would tend to agree although 4,000 is at least somewhat better than the 5,000 to 10,000 character limit "old Twitter" had been considering years ago.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Which is why I didn't agree with some putting so much emphasis on TOS. As I stated several times, TOS does not make a company immune to laws regarding misrepresenting their product/service. TOS simply does not allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud.

You refuse to show the laws you think apply. You’re not credible.

 

[webkit]

You refuse to show the laws you think apply. You’re not credible.

Various types of "misrepresentation" or "fraud" laws can be applied to companies that have TOS. Again, TOS simply does not allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud. Additionally, a court will not enforce unreasonable, unfair or illegal terms that are included in TOS even if the user/customer agreed to them one way or another. Further, laws/regulations in one state or country do not necessarily apply to other states or countries. Companies have also been sue/charged for having misleading or deceptive TOS.

If you want to continue to belief otherwise then there's no point in continuing this discussion. If you agree that TOS doesn't allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud (what I've been saying) then there's no point in continuing this discussion. Either way, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Various types of "misrepresentation" or "fraud" laws can be applied to companies that have TOS. Again, TOS simply does not allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud. Additionally, a court will not enforce unreasonable, unfair or illegal terms that are included in TOS even if the user/customer agreed to them one way or another. Further, laws/regulations in one state or country do not necessarily apply to other states or countries. Companies have also been sue/charged for having misleading or deceptive TOS.

If you want to continue to belief otherwise then there's no point in continuing this discussion. If you agree that TOS doesn't allow a company to get away with misrepresenting their product/service or committing fraud (what I've been saying) then there's no point in continuing this discussion. Either way, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Talk is cheap, champ. Cite the code or move on. The whole reason we’re even talking about TOS is that YOUR original contention was that Twitter was “suppressing” and or “censoring” people. It was directly relevant to that claim since such charges are literally IMPOSSIBLE on a site that requires users to agree to specific terms, including in this case reserving the right to delete content and accounts at the company’s discretion and without any explanation required.

But you’ve consistently refused to review Twitter’s terms and instead shifted to an argument about misrepresentation and fraud. That’s a DIFFERENT issue and one that you’re ALSO failing to argue from since you can’t provide even a single example of the laws you’re obliquely referencing.

So, my assessment stands. You’re not credible. You could be if you wanted to but you’re not willing to do the work, so…

 

[adammusic]

There are some accounts that take some topics and explain why they're trending

Its all broken. No coming back from this mess of trending. Now i have no idea what’s actually trending. It’s over.

 

[dannys1]

It's the same thing with Instagram, no one wants to just look at pictures anymore.

"No one"...

 

[SactoGuy18]

Getting back on topic, 😏 I still think the upper limit for characters per tweet should be 768 in most alphabets and 512 in Chinese and Japanese. And I hope it goes that way.

 

[Open-Source-Norange]

Getting back on topic, 😏 I still think the upper limit for characters per tweet should be 768 in most alphabets and 512 in Chinese and Japanese. And I hope it goes that way.

Why those specific numbers, though?

 

[SactoGuy18]

Why those specific numbers, though?

Competing services to Twitter like GETTR and Truth Social have approximately similar limits. 4,000 characters per post as Elon Musk proposed is a bit too much to read for a social media service that emphasizes quick readability.

 

[Jessica Lares]

Reddit is still easy to read through even though people type more text on there... It's not like you don't know what's worth your time reading after one sentence.