We're sick of people telling us the right and wrong way to use Twitter, and that includes this missive by Slate's Farhad Manjoo about the platform's recent "expanded tweets" upgrade. Manjoo gleefully reiterates his call for a longer character limits, pointing back to an argument he made in 2011 for doubling character limits, explaining that Twitter doesn't work like it used to. "Now people use Twitter for news, jokes, conversations, and ferocious arguments—and 140 characters is too cramped for all of these things," he writes, suggesting a longer 280 character limit to add "heft" to tweets. Beyond the idea that there is a magic number for the perfect tweet, as self-professed Twitter anarchists, we take offense to the suggestion that we up and change our social media society because Manjoo can't fit his musings into the original Twitter limit.
Yes, we know, the character limit's origins make the current rule moot. Societies make a rule in a specific historical moment, and then evolve them as times change. Twitter, for example, picked that magic number because back then Twitter was very SMS text message-based. At that time, messages had 160 character limits (they still do, but most of us use fancier phones now), so Twitter's founders thought they should stay within that limit. And, voilà: A rule was born. That no longer makes sense, argues Manjoo:
A shrinking percentage of Twitter’s userbase accesses the site through SMS, so the 140-character limit was becoming increasingly arbitrary (SMS users will still see all Tweets, but they won’t be able to see the expanded summaries). Instead, most of us get our tweets on the Web and on smartphones, venues that allow for richer content.
Yes, we know. But that's the decision Twitter made. And, that's how we have learned to use the service. Or, as GigaOm's Mathew Ingram put it the first time Manjoo made this argument: "The point the Slate writer misses (or hints at, and then discards) is that if it did this, it wouldn’t be Twitter any more."