Twitter is upping its character limit to 10k. http://www.l

>>52284675
who here gives a flying fuck

get the fuck out of here, using that social media bullshit

Thank jesus
Hopefully the end of ebonic twitspeak.
Doubt it though.

>>52284675
Twitter's main draw is the miniaturization of posts to things you can check in a few seconds. Expanding to 10k characters would turn twitter into a flood of text.

File: 4L_vkAoxEyk.jpg (27KB, 599x345px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 599x345px

>>52284675
Bad move. It's going to be like an awkward blogging platform with a 10k limit. And people are going to be confused as to whether or not they should use the full 10k or stick to the 140 chars. Hopefully this will be the blunder that finally ends twitter. I think it will cause more problems than it solves.

I could see upping it to 300, but Jesus, 10k?

>turning twitter into xanga

it will die

>>52284675
Isn't Twitter sort of cannibalizing itself since it runs Medium?

>>52284675
So, twitter will just become another tumblr and idetica will gain ground?

>>52284675
It'll ruin Twitter.

>>52284675
Now my wall can filled to the brim with everyone's bullshit political opinions. Of course the plus side is those faggots at youranonnews will tweet half as much.

I didn't know killing something so big would be so easy

>>52285043
>xanga
Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long, long time

>>52285037
This, I am sometimes annoyed at the 140 limit but upping it to 10k is just fucking retarded.

>>52285028
This. Now it's just another blogging service. The character limit of 140 made Twitter fast to read/write. This will disappear, ruining the Twitter experience.

That's bat. Twitter is good to check something fast, not to read a wall of text.

>>52284675
10k seems excessive, I'd say 175 max also tweets should auto delete after 1 month regardless of what the tweet is, also accounts get deleted when inactive for 2 years

>>52284675
Dumb idea that defeats the entire point of the platform. But then I hate Twitter, so watching it crash and burn will be fun.

>>52284675
The character limit is what made Twitter, Twitter.

Fuck, some languages, like Japanese, already can write a short story in the 140 character limit. With 10k they'll be able to write a fucking novel.

>>52285086
do you think retarded political faggots are coming to twitter and deciding it's not for them because they'll be constrained to under 140 characters?

if anything, the number of retarded longwinded tweets will decrease because people will consolidate their rants to 1 tweet instead of 16 linked tweets.

>>52284675
While I think Twitter in its current form is shit, it's still its own thing. Doing this will just make it a very badly structured forum instead of a shitty chatroom.

TIME TO SELL TWITTER STOCK

>>52286645
>still had twitter stock after the last year or two

>>52285086
You'll obviously bees to expand tweets over 140 characters.

File: 1435353333783.jpg (85KB, 573x400px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 573x400px

>>52284675
yeah I can finally have a proper conversation with... with.. uh, never mind.

>>52284675
Stick it up your arse, pal

The thing is, by now all those poor unfortunate souls who are addicted to this crap are so used to saying their shit in 140 characters or less, that this new increased limit is going to be meaningless.

They will not have the mental capacity to make full use of it.

>>52287738
>They will not have the mental capacity to make full use of it.
is this a joke or are you satirizing something about how 4chan has a character limit and we don't have the mental capacity to make full use of it?

i can't comprehend how your post can be anything but a joke, but if you're serious then you'd be the most hypocritical negroid in the universe. so help me out

>>52284675
I think it's stupid and pointless, although it doesn't mean everyone is going to suddenly write a shit ton more.

Facebook has the same character limit but I still see posts that are a few works long so whatever.

If anything, it would just change Twitter. You might as well use a blogging website like Tumblr instead.

>>52284675
Twitter is just another blogging service now, but nobody gives a shit about SMS anymore so it probably won't affect them too much.

>>52284675
>Twitter is upping its character limit to 10k.

So now it's tumblr? Because it's not microblogging anymore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 140 character limit one of the the main features of twitter? Quick microblogs or random thoughts that were easily digestible for mobile users?

Imagine all those people tweeting with all those @'s just for a 140 characters message

That's pretty retarded, and goes against what I thought the point of twitter was. Like somebody else said, I can see upping it a bit, but upping it to article length is ridiculous. That service already exists in the form of whatever that twit-longer thing is, but it's discouraged because it's more inconvenient, which is how it should be. If you NEED to tweet something longer you can, but you need extra steps.

The character limit was useful in that it made people have to think of the most direct way to convey their thoughts, which in turn makes reading feeds much simpler.

Kinda the old "limitations of the medium being a driving force behind the content" thing.

140 characters is a little limiting to me, but 10k is a book. An upgrade to something like 200 characters would be perfect.

>>52289712
If you had 200 characters you'd complain that it was a little limiting to you and ask for 260 or 300 or something. You'd work Twitter in for more medium-form thoughts rather than the really short and punchy stuff that 140 allows for.

I think ultimately 10k is a mistake - it might as well be unlimited - unless they make the "cost" of exceeding 140 characters enormous - like turning it into a link to a full post that's otherwise not readable from a person's timeline. Even then, I dunno.

The problem is that they cite people screenshotting text and posting that as a reason for increasing the limit. People aren't (by and large) posting really long text that they typed on their phones, but screenshotting shit that they saw on other sites. So they'll see a news report, see a quote that's worth tweeting about but too long (to say nothing of the context you'd lose trying to extract just that quotation), and they decide to screenshot it and post a little commentary or something.

That use case doesn't fit into the 10k character limit Twitter's toying with. What they need is some way to deeply link into other sites, but that's a hard problem to solve without sites working with them.

Tweets will still be 140 characters but you will be able to attach text (10k characters) to the tweet, just like you can attach and image or video. It's a reaction to people posting text images.

I thought the char limit was due to it using the same interface as sms? (I am very uneducated on this topic, please correct me if I'm wrong)
If this is true, won't it require a complete rehaul of the way it works? And break any existing APIs?

>>52289793
The problem is that most people (at least from what I've seen) are posting text images of text that's not theirs. So for instance they'll see something on tumblr or CNN or whatever that they think is salient, highlight the text that's especially salient, screenshot, and post that image.

Being able to attach a 10k book to a tweet therefore becomes useless except for the people that post strings of messages (mostly replying to themselves). That's a whole use case, but it's not the major one that they claim to be addressing.

>>52289796
Twitter originated with an interface for people to send text messages to it, you're right, so it had a 140 character limit so that if you got an update from twitter about someone sending a tweet, you'd have 20 characters remaining to allow for the username (which for a while had a length limit, though I don't know if that's the case now).

These days, none of this is in effect, so the 140 character limit is just a matter of "tradition", if you want to call it that.

>34 posts and 2 image replies omitted.

... for twitter.
Really? Fuck off back to >>>/b/ you fucking normie shitstains.

>>52289962
go have a tantrum somewhere else, aspie.

10k is way too much. People will just spam hashtags.

500 character limit with 3 hashtag maximum.

>>52290027
the only conceivable reason that people would spam hashtags is to get the tweet on the radar of people who are watching those hashtags. that's fundamentally a spamming tactic, and most regular users don't engage in that. so you'll see spam accounts spamming hashtags but like with spam accounts following, DM'ing, and @replying at stuff indiscriminately, those accounts will get reported.

I also don't see how 500 characters is fundamentally better than 10k - if you're ceding a few inches, why not a few miles? what exactly is it about those 360 characters that makes this change necessary?

Also a 3 hashtag max makes no sense. just automatically flag tweets that use more than 3 (or 5 or 10) hashtags for review automatically and see if those are spammers. If you're limiting for any other reason, then you're operationalizing the wrong variable.

>>52290073
>just automatically flag tweets that use more than 3 (or 5 or 10)

Would take so much work and would open to an incredible amount of abuse. I haven't really used twitter in years and I don't use instagram but Instagram is full of posts with miles of hashtags and it's just a fucking mess.

I don't know if 500 is a good character count. I do know that 10k is too much and 160 is too little at this point. There is a better medium and if I were in charge I would be as delicate as possible.

You can always go higher with the count if youre not getting the results you want. You cannot take them away.

>>52290191
twitter uses algorithms and AI to determine whether a tweet is spammy and I'm pretty sure that the number of hashtags is a feature in that AI already. I could ask someone closer to that code, but I don't think it's super controversial to say that this is already happening.

as for tweet length, I don't think we can necessarily agree that 160 is too short - use of twitter continues to rise and I don't think it's fair to conclude without really good evidence (of what nature, I don't know) that it's nevertheless growing more slowly than it could if people's tweets could be 2 or 3 times longer.

twitter has carved itself a place in the social networks ecosystem. If they're going to chase after Quora users or Medium users or whatever, they better be sure that's what they want. Taking little steps up toward longform posts by upping the limit to 500, then 1,000, then 10,000, etc... seems like a timid, nervous strategy.

>>52289875
>The problem is that most people (at least from what I've seen) are posting text images of text that's not theirs. So for instance they'll see something on tumblr or CNN or whatever that they think is salient, highlight the text that's especially salient, screenshot, and post that image.
True, in that case people will still post images but that's okay. Still there are many people that post their own text images, so this is addressed. Another use case is when people write long texts and split it in 10+ tweets. This creates unnecessary clutter in the timeline, something Twitter wants to avoid.

>These days, none of this is in effect, so the 140 character limit is just a matter of "tradition", if you want to call it that.
The character limit also forces people to write short summaries. Twitter is changing from "140 characters and nothing else" to a media publishing website for text, images and videos with short descriptions.

>>52285028
>>52285414
As far as I understood it, the first 140 characters are displayed as usual, but you can "read more" if you want to know more. It's better than just including the message in a picture.

>>52284675
>Smart move?

Forced move because of #hashtags and @appeals being the part of the post.

They could move # and @ to metainformation instead or not count them.

>>52286744
Want to let you know that I saved that image, anon

They really should have worked in link minimizing, free @shout outs and the hashtags themselves being free. Possibly a free punctuation budget too. A full 10k limit is unneeded, just free it up so you get 140 characters of CONTENT rather than wasting space sending it to the right people.

Why was it just 141 characters to begin with? Sure it's for short text but 141 is still too small.

>>52284675
Twitter is getting tired of being the Cuck of social media. Being the platform for sharing; providing traffic to other sites and never getting the revenue. This going to blow up in their face.

It should be 242 characters

>>52284675
Don't think so. Brevity is Twitter's USP. Nobody wants walls of text.

Basically what >>52285104. It really doesn't matter.

It seems nowadays the world thinks there happen wonders and that it must be difficult to change varchar(140) to mediumtext (just stupid example)

Hell yes... why not making more magic by saying the date is hashed as seconds-string from 1970 to now! Everyone will be surprised.
Breaking news.

>>52292262
This was a gay post and you should feel gay.

>>52290912
So now it's a blog platform with 140 char titles for blog posts

RIP Twitter.

If only it was this easy to kill Facebook as well.