Slashdot Mirror


Twitter To Extend 140-Character Limit For Tweets (recode.net)

An anonymous reader writes: According to Re/code, Twitter is doing away with its 140-character limit for tweets. The company is currently planning on increasing the limit to 10,000 characters, though the final number may change before they roll it out. "Twitter is currently testing a version of the product in which tweets appear the same way they do now, displaying just 140 characters, with some kind of call to action that there is more content you can't see. Clicking on the tweets would then expand them to reveal more content. The point of this is to keep the same look and feel for your timeline, although this design is not necessarily final, sources say."

174 comments

  1. 10K ought to be enough for anybody by ShaunC · · Score: 2

    I wonder what ramifications this will have on peoples' data plan usage.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by bondsbw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Minimal compared to what they would have paid to send the messages by SMS (before unlimited plans).

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    2. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, text just eats up your data plan!

    3. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      10K words should be enough to tweet your 40 page (double spaced) English essay @ your teacher.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 10K characters, not words. Sorry.

    5. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by arth1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Minimal compared to what they would have paid to send the messages by SMS (before unlimited plans).

      Before "before unlimited plans", SMS used to be free. The phone companies didn't start charging for SMS until the late 90s.

      First, there was no cost as it was part of the GSM standard, and the packets went in-between other traffic, creating no extra load. With GSM being the only system that had text messaging, there was no talks of charging anything. If anything, it was meant to generate traffic like "please call me when you can", and promote increased talk time.

      But then the phone companies went to extra steps to be able to block SMS, so they could charge fees for not blocking it, backwards as it sounds.
      And as if that wasn't enough, they went one step further, and started counting SMSes and where they terminated, so they could charge extra for both the amount and the source/destination.

      Now they're offering "unlimited" SMS. Which was free in the first place. And most of them don't even offer unlimited SMS, but charge extra for sending or receiving SMS across borders, or requiring an extra monthly fee for that privilege on top of the "unlimited".
      It's a rip-off.

    6. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Maybe he's Chinese, you insensitive clod!

    7. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before "before unlimited plans", SMS used to be free. The phone companies didn't start charging for SMS until the late 90s.

      You mean, for a couple of years while it was an experimental feature those operators that enabled it didn't charge for it?

      Also back in the mid-to-late nineties - SMS was so far into its infancy that the only phone system that fully supported it was GSM (with early cdmaOne and D-AMPS phones having no ability to send messages), and most operators didn't allow you to message subscribers of other operators.

      And while the mid to late nineties is technically before unlimited plans, you're missing the many, many, years (for some operators being a decade or more) where operators charged either per message, or for a bucket of messages. And US operators charged for incoming messages, despite you having no control over them, for no reason that ever made any sense.

    8. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      While technically it's correct that mobile phone companies didn't charge for SMS messages at some point before unlimited plans, the way you've worded it - in particular the comment you're responded to - kinda implies that we went right from "free" to "unlimited plans" without a long, painful, period in between where every message was charged for. Remember too that "free SMS" only applied for a short period of time when you couldn't even message people off-network, and few operators allowed you to send messages via the web.

      As far as SMS messages "creating no load", the packets going "in-between" other traffic, you appear to be confusing it with GPRS. SMS messages most certainly do have load in GSM, they occupy slots in the control channel - the channels used by the system to set up and tear down calls, ping phones, etc. That channel is actually fairly limited in bandwidth, and flooding a tower with SMS messages will prevent subscribers connected to the same tower from being able to make calls.

      GPRS, the data system, was designed to use unused call channels for data exchange, but even it requires occasional use of the control channel, there's really no technical way to produce a mobile phone system with no bandwidth constraints, and GSM's SMS message system - far from being infinitely efficient in the way free SMS advocates claim - is actually increadibly inefficient for something that's just a way to send 160 character packets. It's only not a problem because relatively few messages are sent.

      Charging for SMS was, in that context, entirely reasonable.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While technically it's correct that mobile phone companies didn't charge for SMS messages at some point before unlimited plans, the way you've worded it - in particular the comment you're responded to - kinda implies that we went right from "free" to "unlimited plans" without a long, painful, period in between where every message was charged for.

      It implies nothing of the sort. Did you even read his message completely? He's talking all about how they charged you for it. The person he was responding to was talking about how it used to cost money "before unlimited plans" (BUP) and then he replied about how it was actually free *before* BUP, and then they found ways to charge you during the BUP era.

    10. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but isn't CJK usually two bytes per character / ideogram in Unicode? So it's more like 5,000 words for a Chinese tweet?

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    11. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by tepples · · Score: 1

      I just tested it, and Twitter counts code points. An emoji takes four uint8_t code units in UTF-8 or two uint16_t code units in UTF-16. This means it counts each Chinese character as one character. However, a character with a combining diacritic counts as two. I can't give examples here because of the whitelist that Slashdot implemented to shut out bidirectional control characters and what used to be called ASCII art.

    12. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by Schnapple · · Score: 1

      But then the phone companies went to extra steps to be able to block SMS, so they could charge fees for not blocking it, backwards as it sounds. And as if that wasn't enough, they went one step further, and started counting SMSes and where they terminated, so they could charge extra for both the amount and the source/destination.

      Doesn't sound backwards at all if your intent is to make money off of people. I get that it would be nice to not have to pay for it but that's not how capitalism works. And the fact that people paid for it says it wasn't a bad idea to do it. Compare that to, say, if Facebook started charging for using Facebook - everyone would stop using it and go elsewhere.

    13. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      640 characters should be enough for everyone.

    14. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While technically it's correct that mobile phone companies didn't charge for SMS messages at some point before unlimited plans, the way you've worded it - in particular the comment you're responded to - kinda implies that we went right from "free" to "unlimited plans" without a long, painful, period in between where every message was charged for. Remember too that "free SMS" only applied for a short period of time when you couldn't even message people off-network, and few operators allowed you to send messages via the web.

      As far as SMS messages "creating no load", the packets going "in-between" other traffic, you appear to be confusing it with GPRS. SMS messages most certainly do have load in GSM, they occupy slots in the control channel - the channels used by the system to set up and tear down calls, ping phones, etc. That channel is actually fairly limited in bandwidth, and flooding a tower with SMS messages will prevent subscribers connected to the same tower from being able to make calls.

      GPRS, the data system, was designed to use unused call channels for data exchange, but even it requires occasional use of the control channel, there's really no technical way to produce a mobile phone system with no bandwidth constraints, and GSM's SMS message system - far from being infinitely efficient in the way free SMS advocates claim - is actually increadibly inefficient for something that's just a way to send 160 character packets. It's only not a problem because relatively few messages are sent.

      Charging for SMS was, in that context, entirely reasonable.

      Talk about flooding a network tower. How many SMS messages are we talking about? Has there *ever* been a case of cellular service becoming inoperable because too many SMS messages were being sent? While you're technically correct about SMS causing load, in fact OP is correct that SMS messages have actually caused no additional load in terms of limiting cellular service.

    15. Re: 10K ought to be enough for anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so it causes load, but it doesn't cause load.

    16. Re:10K ought to be enough for anybody by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Remember too that "free SMS" only applied for a short period of time when you couldn't even message people off-network, and few operators allowed you to send messages via the web.

      Free SMS was the situation long before phones had access to the Internet, let alone the WWW. I had free SMS on my mobile in 1995, but I didn't get a mobile with internet access until about 3 or so years ago.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. So... by taxman_10m · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is Twitter only threatening suicide or do they really mean it?

    1. Re:So... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It makes sense because it's what a lot of tweets already do. Headline and a link to a longer article. All they are doing is providing a space for the longer article on their site, rather than having the user go to a different site to read it. The Twitter app already opens external sites in its own built in browser so that the user doesn't need to switch away from it.

      Why not keep people on the site and grab the be associated revenue?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:So... by cc1984_ · · Score: 0

      Personally I'm glad that Twitter is considering this as sometimes I find it difficult to fit everything I want to say into just 140 charact

    3. Re:So... by gsslay · · Score: 2

      Those "headline" tweets are what I hate most on twitter and I actively avoid accounts that consist of nothing but click-bait to pull you to a website. If I wanted to read a 2 page article I would be browsing the web in a dozen better ways than reading a twitter feed. If I'm reading twitter, I want something short and to the point. I certainly do not want 10k characters, and I do not want to be forever deciding "do I open up this to read further, is it worth it, or is the meat of the comment in the first sentence?"

      By forcing people to be concise twitter had something unique. This new upper limit just makes them yet another networking platform.

    4. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What revenue?

    5. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you actually believe those long tweets are designed for your benefit, the end user? Foolish rabbit!

      Twitter wants longer tweets so they can have more room for advertisers to jam more sh*t down your throat, which Twitter will earn more money from. Stop being so self-centered. It's all about the money, baby.

    6. Re:So... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Why not keep people on the site and grab the be associated revenue?

      This is exactly what Twitter is doing. This is a direct assault on TwitLonger and other services that let you write long articles and tweet short links to them with a blurb of text. For all their API efforts, Twitter has shown time and again that they don't really like people using the API. It's there, but more so Twitter can see what people use it for and then implement those ideas, locking out the services that originated them, than for people to actually innovate with Twitter.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I'm glad that Twitter is considering this as sometimes I find it difficult to fit everything I want to say into just 140 charact

      Substitute "often" for "sometimes" and you can add "ers", and even add a period. Even this tip fit in 140 characters. 22 to go....You suck!

    8. Re: So... by Threni · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for enough space to have a sensible discussion. How is it suicide? Stick to short messages if you like ; I've not read that using all the space is mandatory. If they're smart they will make clear when you reach the original 140 char limit so you can still read a precis of a longer post.

    9. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter could keep the 140 char. limit and do a cap and trade system. You can give your unused characters to someone else to use.

    10. Re: So... by omnichad · · Score: 2

      I'd rather keep my rollover characters, especially if they don't expire.

    11. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not keep people on the site and grab the be associated revenue?

      Why would someone with potentially revenue-generating content want to post it on Twitter instead of just linking from Twitter to a site where they can capture or sell that revenue potential?

      The commercial value of Twitter is primarily a platform to promote content on other sites. Not a great deal for Twitter, but sometimes stuff like this happens when you develop a technology without anticipating the business model that will support it.

      Twitter would have to add enough value that they would be able to match the current profitability of other platforms while adding enough value to make it worth their own while.

      Frankly, I think the real motivation is to goose the value of their stagnant product by demonstrating "innovation", i.e. by tweaking literally the only differentiating feature that Twitter has - character count.

  3. Garbage company. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is because the stock IPO was a bust and the company is still a negative $150 million in income.

  4. beat them to the punch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was sending messages up to 10K characters on the (then arpanet) as early as 1984. Beat them to the ability to exceed 140 characters by 32 years!

    Seriously, I never got the appeal of this 140 character thing. It seems like that creates pressure in the direction of thought-free trivialities rather than meaningful depth of communication.

    Captcha: Capacity.

    1. Re:beat them to the punch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I understand the 140 character was based on the fact it originally used SMS or something like that.

    2. Re:beat them to the punch! by TWX · · Score: 2

      I was sending messages up to 10K characters on the (then arpanet) as early as 1984. Beat them to the ability to exceed 140 characters by 32 years!

      Seriously, I never got the appeal of this 140 character thing. It seems like that creates pressure in the direction of thought-free trivialities rather than meaningful depth of communication.

      Captcha: Capacity.

      As a Fidonet user from back in the BBS days I can sympathize...

      It's almost like the 140-character limit was a holdout from the TAP paging protocol. I had an alphapager for work and later got one for myself before I could afford a cell phone, it was a very convenient medium if one was mindful of the character limits.

      It also reminds me of that Doctor Who episode in the current era of the show where they ended up in the alternate universe and first met the Cybermen- I wonder if the Twitter founders thought that tweets would be used like the daily data-dump that Cybus Industries sent out, where popular twits would send out messages that would cause large numbers of people to pause, look at their phones, chuckle, and then continue on with their day. What we seem to have in reality is a small core of diehard users (both as posters and as recipients) and the vast majority of us only pay attention when the TV media people tell us what some celebrity has tweeted or what's trending. I don't think that most of us give a damn, and now that they're removing the character cap it's likely that they've maxed out their userbase and are struggling to find ways of attracting more users.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:beat them to the punch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never got the appeal of this 140 character thing.

      I knew as soon as Twitter was created that Big Media, which had already reduced serious discussion to soundbites, would ensure Twitter's success.

    4. Re:beat them to the punch! by Dahamma · · Score: 0

      Exactly like that. SMS was 160 chars so they decided on something short enough to include a message and user name, etc.

    5. Re:beat them to the punch! by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      Seriously, I never got the appeal of this 140 character thing. It seems like that creates pressure in the direction of thought-free trivialities rather than meaningful depth of communication.

      As far as I can tell, that is the appeal.

      before twitter and facebook, LJ and other blogging sites had a pretty active community. The format allowed you to post links to "Which timewasting personality quiz are you" and the like but also had a format that encouraged people to actually say something meaningful. And people posted their actual thoughts. But the short message seems to appeal a lot more.

      This is the twitter generation. We just don't have anything like that 5-minute attention span that the MTV generation managed.

    6. Re:beat them to the punch! by Blaskowicz · · Score: 2

      I believe SMS is 160 chars in some countries and 140 in other, or it depends on text encoding.

    7. Re:beat them to the punch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like that creates pressure in the direction of thought-free trivialities rather than meaningful depth of communication.

      As if the idiots who use twitter won't use the extra space exclusivity for Unicode 'art' and emoji spamming. Anyone writing more will want to put it on a blog to monetise the view.

    8. Re:beat them to the punch! by gsslay · · Score: 2

      It seems like that creates pressure in the direction of thought-free trivialities rather than meaningful depth of communication.

      The thought-free trivialities come from the people who don't have much to say that merits more than 140 characters. The solution is not to subscribe to them and their output need not concern you. Everyone else uses twitter to convey single points of information; concisely. If you want to write/read something longer with meaningful depth then twitter isn't the medium for that, any more than a radio traffic update is the place to discuss sustainable transport policy. Go write an email, read a blog or join a forum.

  5. Changing Requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how much software this will break.

    It'll also hurt Twitter. Twitter with large tweets is just an average blog.

    1. Re:Changing Requirements by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Twitter with large tweets is just an average blog.

      Twitter with 10,000 characters is just Facebook.

    2. Re:Changing Requirements by TWX · · Score: 2

      I see one advantage that it has- if the medium literally remains text then it's completely portable, doesn't matter if people are getting messages e-mailed, if they're reading them in an old usenet or forums method or even a graffiti-wall method, if they're getting them by MMS message, or even if they're still looking at them through a web browser, plus it might allow for the messages to pass to other kinds of devices as well. One could have a television display twits as a very simple subroutine instead of having a full browser running, for example, or they could show up on a summarized RSS feed on a cell phone's background or screensaver without having to do anything.

      But that doesn't seem to be how the userbase is actually using Twitter.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Changing Requirements by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Right! What I love about twitter is how concise it really is. You have to think about what you want to say to make it fit and often this causes you to realize you probably don't need to say it in the first place!

      I can see this being the death of my twitter usage.

    4. Re:Changing Requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> I can see this being the death of my twitter usage.

      No it won't. Stop bullshitting.

    5. Re:Changing Requirements by tepples · · Score: 2

      Twitter doesn't have a real name policy, just a policy not to mislead. Twitter has one-way following, as opposed to mutual friendship. And somehow the FSF feels a lot more comfortable with Twitter than with Facebook.

    6. Re:Changing Requirements by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As if one wasn't already enough.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Changing Requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the medium literally remains text

      Oh gawd! 10K of typos, misspellings and ghetto gutter slang!

    8. Re:Changing Requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> You have to think about what you want to say

      No you don't. Stop bullshitting.

  6. An IDIOTIC decision by Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    140 characters is more than enough to express a complete thought!

    - @realDonaldTrump

    1. Re:An IDIOTIC decision by Twitter by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And here I was thinking that the hairpiece thinks big!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:An IDIOTIC decision by Twitter by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      140 characters equals 280 bytes. About the maximum amount of information the hairpiece can process in one tx.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    3. Re:An IDIOTIC decision by Twitter by Panoptes · · Score: 1

      "140 characters is more than enough to express a complete thought!"

      Indeed. Parkinson's Law: 'rubbish expands to fill the available space'.

    4. Re:An IDIOTIC decision by Twitter by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      140 characters equals 280 bytes.

      Windows UTF-16 user spotted!

      The 140 character limit in Twitter is based on SMS, which is max 160 7-bit characters or 140 8-bit characters.

      (Later, it was extended to also support 70 16-bit characters, which allows for Asian languages or emojis, but as soon as you use a single one, the max SMS length drops.)
       

    5. Re:An IDIOTIC decision by Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or Parkinson's Parkinson's Law: "r-r-r-u-b-b-ish expand-d-s to fill the a-a-a-vailable s-s-s-ap-a-a-c-e."

    6. Re:An IDIOTIC decision by Twitter by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I stand corrected. I was not thinking of Windows and of UTF-16, however. Just before posting the comment, I had been programming in Java; a Java character is the equivalent of two 8-bit bytes.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    7. Re:An IDIOTIC decision by Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's UTF-16.

      "The Java platform uses the UTF-16 representation in char arrays and in the String and StringBuffer classes..."

      http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Character.html

  7. done before... by starblazer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Twitters call to fame was quick and concise little blurbs. If someone wanted a full page essay, they would have posted it on livejournal, blogger, or whatever blog/diary/journal site that already exists.

    Expand it to 240, Hell, even an even 200... but making it Yet Another Journal Program.... ugh.

    1. Re:done before... by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      and getting those blurbs as "free" sms(recipent paid, according to recipents plan).

      true, it started as an oneliner system. but the character limit wasn't random.

      however, in typical internet fashion, 99% of users don't really know or care what twitter was made for. neither does the management.

      what is AMAZING is how FUCKING EXPENSIVE twitter is to run. I mean, such a system - even with all the users - should not really cost the losses the company is making.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:done before... by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      Bingo! Some MBA trying to justify his or her paycheck? Just because it is technically possible, it doesn't mean it should be done.

    3. Re:done before... by starblazer · · Score: 1

      gotta pay the sales teams somehow.

    4. Re:done before... by Beck_Neard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You didn't even RTFA.

      They aren't going to increase the word limit. They are simply going to provide an 'extended tweet' functionality where you can add more text as an 'add-on' to your tweet.

      You can already link images and shit in your tweets; and a lot of people just post images containing text. This would keep people from doing that. I can't fathom why morons are complaining about this.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    5. Re:done before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl:dr

    6. Re:done before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares, it was always just another bullshit aggregation system.

    7. Re:done before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's betting it will be a "premium" feature.

    8. Re:done before... by DerPflanz · · Score: 4, Funny

      > I can't fathom why morons are complaining about this.

      Strange as it may sound, I have found that the typical Slashdot public is extremely conservative concerning technology. Whenever a (successful) company changes its product or experiments with features, many slashdotters would reply that they are not going to use it, so it has to be crap. Or, they complain how the existing product / version is superior.

      Luckily, the world is not made of slashdotters, and companies and people keep experimenting and trying out new things. And yes, some are indeed crap, but without changing anything, there wouldn't be progress.

      --
      -- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
    9. Re:done before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Changing things and keep experimenting should not necessitate the destruction of what came before. If the new 'thing' could stand on its own merits no-one would complain.

      But it seems that the business plan needs a auser base to exploit and the new 'thing' wants the jump start of the existing user base and so the old 'thing' needs to die.

      That is what is complained about, but just you go on saying that new and shiny == progress.

    10. Re:done before... by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      If a sales team doesn't make enough to cover the cost of the sales team, it's time for a new sales team.

    11. Re:done before... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Twitter is the new Yahoo

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    12. Re:done before... by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      If a sales team doesn't make enough to cover the cost of the sales team, it's time for no sales team.

      After the move to longer tweets, just start inserting ads selected by Twitter. Then make people have to pay to not see the ads. Say $10/year. Problems solved.

      --
      I come here for the love
    13. Re:done before... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Strange as it may sound, I have found that the typical Slashdot public is extremely conservative concerning technology. Whenever a (successful) company changes its product or experiments with features, many slashdotters would reply that they are not going to use it, so it has to be crap. Or, they complain how the existing product / version is superior.

      It depends what you mean by "technology". Most IT product launches are basically packaging old technology in a shiny new format, and us geeks only care about the actual technology, so we generally dismiss such products as shiny toys. Moreover, we're bitter because we weren't taken seriously back in the day, when we were doing essentially the same things that's all the rage today, i.e. having a social life online.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    14. Re:done before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Whenever a (successful) company changes its product or experiments with features, many slashdotters would reply that they are not going to use it, so it has to be crap. Or, they complain how the existing product / version is superior."

      That's probably because a lot of us are sick and tired of Firefox syndrome. Many useful services/products are ruined by the creator's insistence on feature creep that turns their effective, simple, product into the scariest bloatware this side of the sun.

    15. Re:done before... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Then make people have to pay to not see the ads. Say $10/year. Problems solved.

      Except your user base suddenly dwindles to a few dozen.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:done before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a point of order, Twitter is not successful. They are not making money and apparently have no ability to do so.

    17. Re:done before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange as it may sound, I have found that the typical Slashdot public is extremely conservative concerning technology. Whenever a (successful) company changes its product or experiments with features, many slashdotters would reply that they are not going to use it, so it has to be crap. .

      No kidding. I remember when Twitter launched, Slashdotters ridiculed it because of the tiny character limit. Now we have Slashdotters crying out about that limit being essentially removed.

      Every time something new comes up, whether it's Twitter or Tesla, this crowd screams "Change is bad!"

  8. Next Headlines... by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1
    Buzzfeed Considering Long Form Printed Publication

    Fox News to Create a New Channel Targeting Progressives

    Valve to Start Selling DVDs on Steam

    1. Re:Next Headlines... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Buzzfeed Considering Long Form Printed Publication

      Cracked is way ahead of them. The De-Textbook

  9. this is good for press blasts by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Right now people have taken to including a picture of text in their tweet when announcing big stuff. This is a disaster. It doesn't wrap well for different screen sizes and it makes things hard those assistive devices for poor sight, as they are better at reading text to them than communicating pictures.

    Something must be done. Maybe this is the right fix.

    After we fix that we can go on to eliminating vertical videos.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:this is good for press blasts by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Something must be done. Maybe this is the right fix.

      After we fix that we can go on to eliminating vertical videos.

      I don't get why cell phone manufacturers don't have a feature to record a proper horizontal video while holding the phone vertically. These phones have 10 Megapixel cameras in them now. It shouldn't be that difficult to grab the center 1920 by 1080 out of a much larger field for video.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:this is good for press blasts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the hell would you resort to a picture of text? has the internet gotten so dumbed-down with apps for this and that and facebooks and twitters and instagrams that nobody knows what a fucking hyperlink to a different website is anymore? i mean that is the main navigation tool of the hypertext transfer protocol that is the very foundation of the world wide web, aka the internet as defined by most casual users.

    3. Re:this is good for press blasts by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't get why sites like Youtube still haven't managed to create a proper vertical video player.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:this is good for press blasts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a disaster.

      You mean this is a computational disaster for marketers who are trying to read the text to better target their ads?

    5. Re:this is good for press blasts by mobby_6kl · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because it won't actually solve the problem of terrible vertical videos, which is that they are vertical.

      In fact, it would probably encourage more of them to be created by morons who would feel validated by the new feature.

    6. Re:this is good for press blasts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This change is going to bite twitter in the arse.

    7. Re:this is good for press blasts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [ click to read more! ]

    8. Re:this is good for press blasts by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      It would also really narrow your field of vision - it is as if you're zooming in about 2 times.

    9. Re:this is good for press blasts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you upset about other people's content? It doesn't matter. Don't watch it.

    10. Re:this is good for press blasts by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Why are you upset about other people's content? It doesn't matter. Don't watch it.

      *sigh*

      Because some videos you'd actually like to watch are ruined by being in a shitty little vertical format.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  10. Facebook is killing them. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2

    Twitter is dying because of its open structure and limited message size. Facebook is eating their lunch. The basic difference? Message size. So, Twitter thinks they can out FB Facebook. I dunno. I don't bother with twitter because of the 140 char limit. Hmmmmm... This might lure me into bothering with it. But can I control who follows me? No. Nemmind.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Facebook is killing them. by beakerMeep · · Score: 2

      You can block people from following you, and I think they have a private mode now so only your followers see your tweets.

      --
      meep
    2. Re:Facebook is killing them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until CNN has live questions brought in via Facebook instead of #CNNXYZ, I'll grant you that twitter is dying.

    3. Re:Facebook is killing them. by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      Facebook also has such "privacy settings". Don't trust them. Only put stuff on Twitter/Facebook that you want the world to know, no matter how strict the "privacy settings". After all, everyone that reads it can retweet your messages and it's out in the open anyway. Twitter's privacy settings may have bugs that allow others to see your stuff after all. Foreign law enforcement (specifically the NSA of the US Government) may have a direct back door into Twitter, and be reading your messages regardless of your "privacy settings".

    4. Re:Facebook is killing them. by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      did Netcraft confirm it?

    5. Re:Facebook is killing them. by tacokill · · Score: 1

      Foreign law enforcement (specifically the NSA of the US Government) may have a direct back door into Twitter
      Not "may". They do and have for a long time now. We know that from PRISM and other programs divulged by Snowden.

  11. Suggest rebranding by liqu1d · · Score: 1

    Twitbook 2016

  12. limitations of form concentrates and enhances by sittingnut · · Score: 1

    twitter is giving up essential part of what makes twitter successful.
    limitations of form concentrates the minds and enhances the power and effect of content.
    that is why (usually, not always, it is true) poetry is greater than prose and a play or movie with time limits will beat up a mutipart tv drama, etc etc.
     

    1. Re:limitations of form concentrates and enhances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been to twitter? lol smh fam *8 identical emojis* *3 other emojis*

      Captcha: shriek. The most common form of communication on Twatter - a group of monkeys, shrieking at each other and throwing fec... er, emojis.

    2. Re:limitations of form concentrates and enhances by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      existence of bad poetry does not invalidate my argument that limitations of form (some times quite arbitrary as in sonnets , haiku , etc ) concentrates and enhances power of expression.
      same with twitter limit.

    3. Re:limitations of form concentrates and enhances by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      limitations of form concentrates the minds and enhances the power and effect of content.

      And it will continue to, if Twitter sticks to the philosophy of its current experimental interface. 140 characters will still be shown in the feed, with a link to view the extended tweet. Don't feel like writing more than 140 characters? Then don't! I'm sure Twitter will include some kind of 'legacy' config option where it will artificially disallow you from writing more than 140 characters if you enable the setting.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    4. Re:limitations of form concentrates and enhances by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      twitter is giving up essential part of what makes twitter successful.

      No Twitter is giving up something you like about it. If Twitter we a community project like Wikipedia it would be successful, but it isn't. Twitter is business and one that is losing money, which is by definition not successful.

      Twitters core problem is people tweet links to places not twitter. twitter needs your eyeballs to stay on twitter if they are going to make any money with ads. So they can't have all their users just linking to external content. That is bad business. Look at what facebook does they work very hard to pull as much external content as possible into the feeds whenever people link something outside, why because it chances are if you can produce a story summary and image people will just look at it there. Just like on Slashdot nobody reads the TFA, nobody clicks that crap on facebook they read whats there and scroll on down.

      Twitter can't do that in 140 chars. So they need some place for the content to go, that is also twitter.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:limitations of form concentrates and enhances by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      That 'essential part' is exactly the part I hate about Twitter, forcing everyone to condense everything into a badly-readable, tag-infested blurb. They took a miserable concept from news media (sound bites) and applied it to everyone, killing off thoughtful discussion in favor of polarization.

    6. Re:limitations of form concentrates and enhances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitters core problem is people tweet links to places not twitter. twitter needs your eyeballs to stay on twitter if they are going to make any money with ads.

      In order to do this Twitter will have to add enough value to allow them to make it worth a profitable content-producer's while to post on Twitter rather than an alternative platform. In other words, they will have to generate enough money to compete with alternative platforms and cover their own costs (including those of adding many more features than higher word counts).

      You wrote:

      If Twitter we a community project like Wikipedia it would be successful, but it isn't.

      This is a good point. But if Twitter has a core problem, it is that is is trying to build a business around a concept that is better suited to a community project.

  13. Short attention spans bit Twitter officials... by dskoll · · Score: 1

    "Bob Snodgrass reporting from San Francisco.

    Twitter officials scheduled a news conference to explain the rationale behind the much higher limit. But unfortunately, people stopped paying attention after 45 seconds, so we don't really know why they increased the limit.... ooh, look! A kitten video! Bob Snodgrass signing out."

  14. Fatter Twitter = Twatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Twitter will become fatter - Twatter?

  15. More room for Hashtags! #WhoCares by Thatto · · Score: 0

    I missed the whole point of twitter. It's just a listserve with a 140 character limit.

  16. Constraint + Desire = Art by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Consider that the limit of 140 characters is a blessing. It inspires us to be pithy, to craft our utterances to achieve maximum effect.

    Art thrives when it is constrained by limits of some kind. An example:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:Constraint + Desire = Art by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

      Screw you.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Constraint + Desire = Art by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Whoosh. [I think.]

      The point is that even Sarah Palin, when confined by constraints, can create art.

      Peace out.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Constraint + Desire = Art by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember someone trying to tweet a whole movie frame by frame..... Oh there it is http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/tr...
      They didn't get very far.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  17. More noise on the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon all those people who really have nothing worth saying can use a whole lot more words to say it.

    1. Re:More noise on the Internet by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3

      It may be observed
      in a general way
      that life would be better, distinctly,
      if more of the people
      with nothing to say
      were able to say it
      succinctly.

      -- Piet Hein

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:More noise on the Internet by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But at least they'll do it concentrated in one place so it's easy to ignore them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:More noise on the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beautiful, but doesn't fit in 140 characters.
      "Brevity is the soul of whit/but poetry runs all to shit/When shoes of meaning serve the horn/of Twitter's vapid, crowded form - Anonymous"

    4. Re:More noise on the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be observed
      in a general way
      that life would be better, distinctly,
      if more of the people
      with nothing to say
      were able to say it
      succinctly.

      -- Piet Hein

      You far overestimate people today, especially their attention span.

      From a two-hour movie to a two-minute YouTube vid to a six-second Vine. Yes, especially.

    5. Re:More noise on the Internet by phil.swansborough · · Score: 1

      Love the quote, but twitter seems to prove they'll say many times more things if they're limited in what can be said in one outburst!

    6. Re:More noise on the Internet by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Congrats, this will soon by my Facebook status

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  18. ASCII Art Finds A New Home by zenlessyank · · Score: 2

    Can't wait for the pics!

    1. Re:ASCII Art Finds A New Home by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess they'll have alot of fun filtering out all the ascii porn.

    2. Re:ASCII Art Finds A New Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still remember the ASCII art, including some porn, from people creating carefully selected alt.* Usenet newsgroups. Checking your .newsrc for ASCII art occasionally got pretty funny.

  19. Re: HOLY FUCK! North Korea has the H-Bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody believes that bullshit propaganda

  20. And they're going to call it... by mark_reh · · Score: 2

    email!

  21. Already has photo attachments; why not text? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't see it as "suicide" any more than being able to attach photos to a Tweet was. You'd get the headline in the Tweet and the article in an attached text file.

    1. Re:Already has photo attachments; why not text? by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "I don't see it as "suicide" any more than being able to attach photos to a Tweet was. "

      We had email newsletters doing all that for over 40 years.

    2. Re:Already has photo attachments; why not text? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 0

      So basically email?

    3. Re:Already has photo attachments; why not text? by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      So basically email?

      LIke a "reply all" email. :)

  22. Re:HOLY FUCK! North Korea has the H-Bomb! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Because it's not April 1st.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. where twits tweet to twats by rubycodez · · Score: 0

    self-obsessed people prattling on about nothing important, I'm impressed someone could monetize narcissism of the masses

    @slashdot I just took a big greasy dump

    1. Re:where twits tweet to twats by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      self-obsessed people prattling on about nothing important, I'm impressed someone could monetize narcissism of the masses

      But now they can prattle on at length...stupefying, boring, length.

      No longer with their posts about their "AWESOME breakfast" be limited to 140 chars, now they can shit out pages and pages of twaddle detailing their bagel and the egg and the coffee...for 10,000 characters.

      In other words, twitter just invented something called a"forum".

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  24. Camera orientation must match that of device by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't get why cell phone manufacturers don't have a feature to record a proper horizontal video while holding the phone vertically.

    Because the Android CDD requires the camera to have the same orientation as the screen. Section 7.5.5 (Camera Orientation) states:

    Both front- and rear-facing cameras, if present, MUST be oriented so that the long dimension of the camera aligns with the screen’s long dimension. That is, when the device is held in the landscape orientation, cameras MUST capture images in the landscape orientation. This applies regardless of the device’s natural orientation; that is, it applies to landscape-primary devices as well as portrait-primary devices.

    So in the CDD's terms, what you're asking for is a way to crop 9:16 video down to 4:3 while recording it.

    1. Re:Camera orientation must match that of device by subk · · Score: 1

      I don't get why cell phone manufacturers don't have a feature to record a proper horizontal video while holding the phone vertically.

      What they should do instead is flash some kind of warning on the screen that prompts the user to hold their phone like a camera before "filming"

      --
      Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
    2. Re:Camera orientation must match that of device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Both front- and rear-facing cameras, if present, MUST be oriented so that the long dimension of the camera aligns with the screen’s long dimension. That is, when the device is held in the landscape orientation, cameras MUST capture images in the landscape orientation. This applies regardless of the device’s natural orientation; that is, it applies to landscape-primary devices as well as portrait-primary devices.

      So in the CDD's terms, what you're asking for is a way to crop 9:16 video down to 4:3 while recording it.

      I don't see anything in the requirement that requires the camera to have the same aspect ratio as the screen. It implies that it has a long edge but if we assume that the long edge only is one pixel longer than the short edge and that that extra pixel row is black pixels used for thermal compensation then you can crop your 1:1 image down to whatever aspect ratio your screen is.
      Doesn't really matter as long as the camera has a higher resolution than what you use.

    3. Re:Camera orientation must match that of device by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Put some useful feature in the Landscape layout -- like how those virtual keyboards get bigger when you turn the phone sideways. People filming with their phones will turn their phones without thinking after that.

      --
      I come here for the love
    4. Re:Camera orientation must match that of device by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      However such a crop makes far more sense with video than with stills.

      With stills recording the still at the native resoloution of the camera still is managable. So cropping to zoom or to change the aspect ratio means throwing away information that you could otherwise have kept. You can always crop after capture.

      With video on the other hand you are forced to throw away most of the data from the sensor since the storage and encoding pipeline can't cope with all of it. Adding functionality to chose what you throw away in a more flexible manner sounds useful to me.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  25. Wow, so innovative by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

    So basically they invented a forum.

    Woooo, it's so innovative, I feel dizzy.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Wow, so innovative by omnichad · · Score: 1

      No, forums can have threads. This is not organized.

    2. Re:Wow, so innovative by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      No, forums can have threads. This is not organized.

      Just wait until next year when they come out with their AWESOME NEW feature called Twitter-Threads.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  26. Crap by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Twitter: the confetti of the internet, now with even more contentless crap!

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  27. What does "characters" mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they say 10,000 characters is this for everyone or only latin alphabets?

    If you include a single Emoji in your message will you then be limited to 5,000 characters?

    Old sch00l l1m1ts:
    GSM 7-bit = 160 characters
    8859-1 = 140 characters
    UCS-2 = 70 characters

    1. Re:What does "characters" mean? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Twitter's character limit seems to be based on unicode characters. I'd assume it stores internally in one of the UTF encodings.

      10000 characters is an arbitrary limit, to prevent people posting entire novels. If some messages take 10K to store and some take 20K or 30K to store it's a fairly minor problem for twitter, where the costs are offset by the fact that this indicates a much larger, more international userbase.

  28. twitter faggots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Faggots follow twitter faggots

    1. Re:twitter faggots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you follow them, fellow faggot.

  29. Fact-checking anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The news isn't that twitter will do this. It's just that someone said twitter will do it.

  30. Re: HOLY FUCK! North Korea has the H-Bomb! by WarJolt · · Score: 2

    Because there aren't enough North Koreans to throw the damn missile.

    Why worry?

  31. Hmm. by Arterion · · Score: 1

    When letters
    Seven score suffice,
    Trim the excess,
    Be concise
    Burma Shave

    --
    "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
  32. translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An organisation that runs a large IRC server with web frontend.. that makes money by mining the social graph and advertising... has released a press release they increase self-imposed post length limit.

    Tech news indeed!

  33. Insist on Haikus by taylorius · · Score: 1

    This would be much better - count syllables and enforce a 5-7-5 structure on all tweets.

  34. So Twitter wants to be a Facebook? by Barryke · · Score: 1

    I like Twitter for a reason, and that boils down to its short messages. To me its what every RSS aggregator tried to be.

    If its contents becomes anything like the spam i get in Facebook, i'll have to find an alternative that technically minded people like.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
  35. Re:HOLY FUCK! North Korea has the H-Bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The seismic event, which measured a magnitude of 5.1, occurred 19 kilometers (12 miles) east-northeast of Sungjibaegam, the United States Geological Survey said.

  36. very important news I have...CLICK TO READ MORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it all going to be like this?

  37. Re:HOLY FUCK! North Korea has the H-Bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's likely a fusion-boosted bomb, not a H bomb. A small amount of fusion fuel serves as a neutron source to increase fission events in the plutonium, thus allowing to build a warhead more powerful at the same size or smaller at the same yield.

  38. Finally! After all... by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

    It's 2015. Er, I mean... 2016.

    --
    So say we all
  39. protesters against this action foiled! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Several prominent tweeters wanted to protest against this action, but they couldn't fit enough expletives into 140 characters...

  40. Oh what times we live in! by RDW · · Score: 2

    This must be the most momentous, earth-shattering event since Instagram allowed rectangular photos! My predictions for 2016:

    - Snapchat snaps to be viewable for 6 months after opening.
    - Vine clip limit extended to 90 minutes.
    - Dice completes gradual 'stealth beta' transformation of Slashdot.
    - Civilization altering asteroid strike leaves Usenet newsgroups as most important social media.

  41. Copyright infringement by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    Overnight there is going to be zillions of articles copy-pasted illegally[*] and that's going to create a mess. I'm concerned that it will make the business of media and news even more worthless. It will also make it even easier for people to self-publish as getting a blog or domain main is a small barrier to entry, which is a good thing. Yet journalist college degrees etc. and credentials will even get more meaningless.

    I'm pissed that newspaper physically shrank and are rarely read anymore. Give me back newspapers from the 90s. Even the TV news are rarely watched these days. Although there's no conspiracy behind this, people get increasingly isolated and ill-informed or not informed these days and I suppose that's threatening western democracy itself. Yes you can read in amazing detail about any topic you like but only you will have read it. Other people will read into their echo chambers, including old-fashioned (very unhelpful) bullshit comments about such and such issue being the Jews's fault. (in association with the Rothschilds, the media, Israel, the US, the terrorists or any group you can think of)

    [*] It's nominally illegal most times.

  42. Goodbye Cruel World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll see if this works.

    I have a sawbuck on "Will fade to black within two years."

  43. Re: HOLY FUCK! North Korea has the H-Bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Fusion boosted bomb is an H bomb... If they got some other element to fuse... We are in a shit of trouble.

  44. You mean for twats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fixed that for you!

  45. I think you're forgetting how people use mess by tburkhol · · Score: 2

    aging systems with multiple text-entry fields. You know, like they'll start a message wherever the cursor goes, then tab to the next field when they run out of space. Or they'll fill the first 140 characters with salutations and declarations of importance. People suck at titles, headings, and summaries. The (questionable) beauty of twitter is to force people to write only short, complete messages, easily read at a glance.

    De-twittering twitter makes it email, and a twitter feed with 50 headlines saying "Important: read this" is pretty useless.

    1. Re:I think you're forgetting how people use mess by tepples · · Score: 1

      a twitter feed with 50 headlines saying "Important: read this" is pretty useless.

      Unfollow anyone who can't be taught how to write a headline.

    2. Re:I think you're forgetting how people use mess by clonehappy · · Score: 2

      Whoooooshh!

  46. You won't believe twitters new clickbait feature! by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    That's all it is. commercial entities needed more space to drop in more click bait.

    Catchy headline, then low quality information trying to sell something.

  47. Re:HOLY FUCK! North Korea has the H-Bomb! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    So something exploded. That means what exactly?

    We have satellites in orbit, did they measure anything? H-Bombs are triggered by nuclear bombs. The least I'd expect is some radiation.

    So wake me when you catch some rays.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  48. Why suicide? by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    I have never used twitter. The thing that made me completely uninterested in using it was mainly the 140 character limit. I get the impression that is something from the days of flip phones with tiny screens and having to type with a number keypad.

    I figured as well that the 140 char limit would just make intelligent conversation impossible. So there would be zero content worth following.

    At 10000 chars, maybe I'll sign up for an account - maybe.

    --
    ...
    1. Re:Why suicide? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I get the impression that is something from the days of flip phones with tiny screens and having to type with a number keypad.

      In fact, before twitter was an "app" or much of a web site, it was a group SMS service. Send a text to 40404 and all of your "followers" get a text with the content. Later they added aliases (usernames), which allowed @ replies to send a message to a specific person.

      It wasn't until late 2006 that you could sign up without a cell phone number involved

  49. Please, no by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    Anything worth saying, and things worthless, can be condensed into 140 characters.Tweets shouldn't bring you the evening news.

  50. Incorrect length? by blue9steel · · Score: 1

    For me, 140 characters was way too short to say anything interesting. I wanted to be able to tweet about a paragraphs worth of text in order to be able to have any meaningful conversation. I think 10,000 characters is too long, that will break the short message format that differentiates the service.

    1. Re:Incorrect length? by captjc · · Score: 1

      My thoughts as well. Personally, I would say go to about 300 characters while not having images or reply tags ("@user") counted against that limit.

      That would give plenty of space to write out a full thought while still keeping it brief.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  51. Yawn. by sootman · · Score: 1

    Call me when I can embed a VM* in a tweet.

    * virtual machine, not voicemail.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  52. Tweet Mail? by ebusinessmedia1 · · Score: 1

    So how is it different than email - ultimately? Twitter is irrelevant!

  53. 10000 characters by MTBaldwin · · Score: 1

    Who wants to read essays on twitter?

  54. And for their second trick... by damnitalready · · Score: 1

    ... they shall rename themselves "tumblr"...