One of the worst parts of the unlimited character Twitter posts is that beyond a certain word limit everyone needs an editor. Editors are vital for writing, but even more critical for doing effective and accurate reporting. An infinitely long post usually gravitates towards rambling and inaccuracy, whereas shorter ones force the writer to be concise and correct in expression.

By suppressing links to edited articles and replacing them with ultra-long posts Twitter has simply succeeded in replacing well-processed information with raw junk as though the two are equivalent. While they may show up as the same on a statistical dashboard showing "usage" the underlying character and quality of the content could not be more different.

Writer, podcaster, and commentator on foreign affairs and politics. Runs /dropglobalnews

Clanker Broadcasting Service /cbs

design @splits | /wireframe /latenightcrew /event-pass /feud

Indeed, I actually think WC has the Goldilocks length – just long enough to allow the ability to expand on a thought, but not so long that concision ceases to be a consideration.

Completely agree. Re your first point, the saying "constraint breeds creativity" rings true.

By contrast I was worried when Warpcast announced long casts, but TBH the experience has been mostly positive. Right amount of constraint vs slack in the UX.