Slashdot Mirror


Twitter Will Extend Its 140 Character Limit On September 19th (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Beginning September 19th, [Twitter] will cut down on exactly which types of content count toward the platform's 140-character limit. Media attachments (images, GIFs, videos, polls, etc.) and quoted tweets will no longer reduce the count. The extra room for text will give users more flexibility in composing their messages. Twitter first announced plans to stop counting extras like photos, videos, and user polls toward the limit back in May, but gave no firm date on when the shift would occur. A Twitter spokesperson declined to comment when contacted by The Verge. The date comes from two sources familiar with the company's business, but plans for the rollout could change. Another new adjustment to the character limit is that usernames will no longer count when they're at the beginning of replies, giving users additional room for discussion. It's unclear whether all of these changes will occur simultaneously; certain content types may gradually stop counting against the character limit in stages. But the company will at least kick off the move next Monday.

135 comments

  1. Proverbial by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As the Dutch proverb goes, "a cat in a tight corner can make odd jumps". Twitter is in a tight place, to which this move may IMHO be a witness.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  2. It's about time... by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...that a company with an online service stops acting like a cellular texting service.

    Limits are even worse to deal with when they are artificial.

    Then again, so are people.

    1. Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is exactly where twitter's origins are.. SMS messaging. however, i am surprised they didn't do this, say, 3 years ago, to help boost its ipo.

    2. Re:It's about time... by lesincompetent · · Score: 0

      A-MEN to that!

    3. Re:It's about time... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. No thank you. We don't need another blogging service - Twitter is unique in its tight limits and those limits do provoke some good discussion while cutting down on the meaningless waffle. I can't count the number of Medium.com posts I have read which could be summed up in a couple of sentences, and thats what Twitter excels at.

      You can still have meaningful discussions, but you do NOT get to post a wall of text and walk away - it takes effort to post a wall of tweets, during which time people may reply to individual tweets, and that is awesome.

    4. Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It will slowly and surely turn in to a facebook clone.

    5. Re:It's about time... by Entrope · · Score: 0

      Most people post drivel instead of taking advantage of the short limit. Hardly anyone can clearly say something novel in 140 characters. Instead, we get whines about Awful Politico-X, screenshots of longer Facebook rants, and hip-fired rants about ambiguous tweet two-in-a-series-of-ten. Twitter's limit has driven waves of people trying to devise clever soundbites, but largely just beating tribal-affiliation drums.

    6. Re:It's about time... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yep. A service where the signal to noise ratio is only envied by SETI will become slightly less useless. Now hipsters can use full spelling to describe their outrage at Urban Outfitters being sold out of that perfect frumpy sweater that they wanted to buy!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    7. Re:It's about time... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Odd; I thought Twitter's business model was being the Internet's primary source for meaningless waffle.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    8. Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You might want to consider following less terrible people on Twitter.

    9. Re:It's about time... by geekmux · · Score: 0

      Odd; I thought Twitter's business model was being the Internet's primary source for meaningless waffle.

      Exactly.

    10. Re:It's about time... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      They have a business model?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    11. Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, twatter is so #unique and allows for meaningful discussion #fml #blacklivesmatter #hastag #diecisscum

    12. Re: It's about time... by Entrope · · Score: 0

      You incorrectly assume that I follow anyone on Twitter. My exposure to it is pretty much exclusively what other people find good enough to link to, plus the flood of garbage sent in response to those messages.

    13. Re: It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't understand how that is skewing your perception, then I can't help you.

    14. Re:It's about time... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Having a limit makes sense, even a rather small one, but 140 is just too small. They should go up to 300 or so.

    15. Re:It's about time... by s122604 · · Score: 1

      I agree with this, generally, but I think 140 is a little too tight. I find myself with thoughts that end up in the 160 - 200 character range, and it's annoying to break them up.

      Of course there are numerous "tweet longer" services that will turn a longer post into an image, so it's not hard to work around if you choose to

    16. Re:It's about time... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2

      Speak only for yourself. One of the biggest reasons I ignore Twitter is the inability to be able to write any comment minimally useful because of size limitations. It is like a conversation between brats.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    17. Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with this, generally, but I think 140 is a little too tight. I find myself with thoughts that end up in the 160 - 200 character range, and it's annoying to break them up.

      160 seems to be the SMS standard, why not settle on that? I always thought a 140 limit was stupid.

    18. Re: It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're ignorant but commenting.

      Please go to a political thread and continue.

    19. Re:It's about time... by iffrobot · · Score: 1

      That was my impression: the 140 character limit is defining of Twitter. It was good to have messages condensed to a certain specification when attention of users became so in demand. That led to the use of link shorteners in tweets, though. This change partly addresses that.

    20. Re:It's about time... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Having a small limit is what made it viable to start including people's tweets on television (I do graphics, sometimes involving social media, for live TV). I can tell you our social media people will probably be shying away from longer tweets to show on air... we would have to leave the graphic up far too long, and we'll have to rework our graphics that maximize the font size to make tweets more legible to be read in a short period of time - the font size will be smaller, it'll be harder to read in the 5 seconds or so the post is on air. On the other hand, I hate social media with a passion (not the concept, but the inevitable result), so it's all the same to me.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    21. Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 140-character limit should never have included URLs nor hashtags nor @account.

    22. Re:It's about time... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Odd; I thought Twitter's business model was being the Internet's primary source for meaningless waffle.

      They have a business model?

      More importantly: They have waffles?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    23. Re:It's about time... by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      I can tell you our social media people will probably be shying away from longer tweets to show on air...

      How about not showing any tweets on TV? It's useless clutter blocking the content that viewers actually want to see.

    24. Re:It's about time... by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      @I @agree @with @you. @This @is @a @great @idea @that @will @make @it @much @easier @to @formulate @longer @tweets @.

    25. Re:It's about time... by tepples · · Score: 1

      I think 140 might have been to leave room in the SMS-to-Twitter gateway for authenticating your Tweet or for posting a Tweet containing characters outside GSM's 7-bit encoding.

    26. Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sometimes it's the reaction to the straight-jacket which leads to new avenues of creativity. Just not this time.

    27. Re:It's about time... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      It's Nielsen's fault - they started including social media mentions to come up with an overall "presence" stat, so every network jumped on trying to get people to talk about their shows on social media - and what better enticement than to dangle the possibility of having your tweet actually shown on the air for your five seconds of fame?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    28. Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please take a moment to reconsider.

      Having limits is one thing (along others), which make art interesting.

      Games, and computer games even more so, are based around artificial limits.

      As for people, well, at least you got a nice punchline.

  3. Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So what's the difference between twitter and any other blog site?

    1. Re:Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter is popular. Twittter is seen on TV. People have heard of Twitter. People use Twitter. Twitter is trendy. Twitter is important.

    2. Re:Twitter by edxwelch · · Score: 0

      Twitter is the best way to send death threats to celebrities

    3. Re:Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any blog site has 100M+ *viewers*?

    4. Re:Twitter by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I mentioned this in a post above, but one of the reasons you'll see viewer tweets, and I don't think I've ever seen viewer facebook posts, is exactly because the size allows someone to quickly and concisely state a thought; I work on TV graphics, and longer tweets would require smaller fonts and more air time - making them unlikely to be selected to be shown during our shows.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  4. They'd better tread lightly here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The genius of the 140 character limit is that you always finish reading a tweet before your brain has time to fully process how utterly boring and trivial the bullshit you just read was. If you give users the ability to pad out their vapid brain farts into essays that take actual time to read, people might finally start grasping what a monumental heap of pointlessness twitter really is.

    1. Re:They'd better tread lightly here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you give users the ability to pad out their vapid brain farts into essays...

      That's called Facebook.

    2. Re:They'd better tread lightly here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When there's some sort of crisis or emergency going on, and you turn on the TV news, what do you find? You find the news channel reading out tweets from people on the scene. Yes, the news gets its news from twitter. It has its uses.

    3. Re:They'd better tread lightly here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Twitter's business model isn't built around lazy journalists riding out the last gasps of the TV news era half-assing their jobs by shoving whatever random shit they found on the internet that afternoon onto the screen, it's based on serving ads to billions of idiots who think billions of other idiots need to know that their dog just farted. Any positive, tangible contribution to humanity is incidental and purely unintentional.

    4. Re:They'd better tread lightly here. by RandomSurfer314 · · Score: 1

      Because wild speculations by panicking housewives is what we like to hear when there is a crisis or emergency. And I'm not kidding...

    5. Re:They'd better tread lightly here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The genius of the 140 character limit is that you always finish reading a tweet before your brain has time to fully process how utterly boring and trivial the bullshit you just read was. If you give users the ability to pad out their vapid brain farts into essays that take actual time to read, people might finally start grasping what a monumental heap of pointlessness twitter really is.

      TL;DR

    6. Re:They'd better tread lightly here. by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Which is why I watch neither.

    7. Re:They'd better tread lightly here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The genius of the 140 character limit is that it makes someone with something interesting to say, think about how they say it.
      It also means that someone without something interesting to say doesn't waste too much of anyone's time.

    8. Re:They'd better tread lightly here. by chispito · · Score: 1

      Yes, the news gets its news from twitter. It has its uses.

      That is as much a failing of TV news as it is a success of Twitter.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    9. Re:They'd better tread lightly here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the most astute observation that's been made on here for a while I reckon.

      The more anonymous the coward the more infinite the wisdom.

    10. Re:They'd better tread lightly here. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Yes, trust me, it's not lazy journalists, it's executives trying to increase ad revenue and making the journalists use social media on the air. Social media is now considered as part of Nielsen ratings, right or wrong (wrong, IMO); so broadcasters actively encourage people to tweet to their shows/networks. People wouldn't do it if there wasn't that itty-bitty, teeny-tiny chance that their tweet might make it on air, so they have to "reward" the tweeters by giving them their 5 seconds of fame. You thought the "bugs" (like network logos overlaying your favorite programs) were bad, now we have to have "#name-of-show" keep popping up on the screen, too.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  5. Growing pains by OpenSourced · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's curious how many big companies, when they reach a certain age, think that it's a good idea to take whatever make them big, and change it. It's probably the human instinctive rejection of simple inaction.

    Twitter is famous because it forces people to be concise. Tweets are cited in news outlets because they are concise and so provide the short text bite that is easy to digest by the public. Nobody is going to cite a tweet that is longer than the article.

    So basically, what they are doing is giving a step to get closer to a mailing list service. Way to go!

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:Growing pains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tweets are cited in news outlets because journalists are fucking lazy.

      ftfy

    2. Re:Growing pains by idji · · Score: 1

      They have no choice. they have to change or die. Look it up, Twitter is not going well at all.

    3. Re: Growing pains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Journalist much lately? Well paid, were you?

    4. Re:Growing pains by peragrin · · Score: 1

      companies have to change. You see once you hit your growth wall you stop growing, which makes you unattractive to wall street, which trashes your company.

      wall street demands unlimited growth in all businesses. if your company stops growing you will pay for it.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Growing pains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's probably the human instinctive rejection of simple inaction."

      It's the first time in my long life I've heard that claim.

    6. Re:Growing pains by Drethon · · Score: 2

      In my meaningless opinion, this is because Twitter made the horrible decision to sell stock. A stock company needs a continuous, profitable, growth model to survive. Sure Twitter can try to make money by advertising but I can't see how it could have gotten any bigger than it was before selling stocks. Google expanded but by diversifying as a company, not by somehow making being a search engine more profitable.

    7. Re:Growing pains by Entrope · · Score: 2

      It's almost impossible to grow to "Internet scale" through organic growth -- you won't be able to provision ahead of demand. Companies that want to be the Next Big Thing seek venture capital, and VCs want an exit strategy, which means an IPO. Google was no exception in that regard.

    8. Re:Growing pains by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      That might be true for companies that don't actually produce value, like Twitter. Twitter exists as a conduit for delivering eyeballs to advertisers, and must continue to grow and stay in the forefront, or those eyeballs go to the new guy that is in the forefront and the company shrivels like a piece of fruit left on the counter too long. See: Myspace.

      Companies that actually produce goods of some kind don't necessarily have the same pressures.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    9. Re:Growing pains by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's only stuff like links that are excluded, the message still has to be short. The headline is wrong.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Growing pains by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 1

      This is simply the result of so-called professional management taking the reins, feeling the need to "do something" to be relevant and try to justify their extravagant compensation.

    11. Re:Growing pains by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      That sounds like investor/share holder FUD...

      Twitter is fine. They just aren't growing at some exponential rate that is demanded by those... people.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    12. Re:Growing pains by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Nobody is going to cite a tweet that is longer than the article.

      It doesn't really surprise me any more that some /. users don't even bother to fully read the summary. What is sad is how the preponderance of moderators don't seem to be reading the summaries either.

    13. Re:Growing pains by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Twitter is NOT fine. If you look at a 5 year history, they've been doing nothing but falling.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re: Growing pains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially when you see entire news articles about one of Trump's tweets. Twitter's benefit is that it allows dumb presidential nominees, CEOs, congressman, and other public figures type in something while in an emotional rage, and let the entire world witness how half-cocked those people actually are.

    15. Re:Growing pains by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Not true.

      www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/

      Unless you have better stats.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    16. Re:Growing pains by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      I've never heard it phrased that way, but in the consumer world most people want new for the sake of new - they buy new phones with features they don't need, faster computers to waste more cpu cycles and power while tweeting and using facebook... even food that really can't be improved, like milk and other simple products get new labeling - they sometimes even make a big deal about it right on the label itself: "New look, same great taste!" Coca Cola tried to evolve and failed, but they have to keep changing something, so they keep relabeling and rebranding things. If they can't change the product, they change the can.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    17. Re:Growing pains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They really haven't evolved though to try to broaden their audience. It's mainly used by companies who feel they need a presence on there, corporate news and junk news companies, existing social media celebs/junkies and their bizarre fans, SJW/rage-aholic types, and celebrities. Occasionally it comes in handy during major events, though without a backing photo or video, isn't a trustworthy source on its own.

    18. Re:Growing pains by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Kinda like /. ? I swear when I load /., i can feel the javascript shuddering through my system.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    19. Re:Growing pains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what if they like, gave their users TWO options? Like, the ones that liked the limit, could have it, and the ones that didn't like it, wouldn't have it.

      That would be neat. Do I get a patent now?

    20. Re:Growing pains by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I do have better stats - it's called THEIR STOCK NUMBERS.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    21. Re:Growing pains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, Alex is a dumb shit who can't follow a thread.

      Poster says that while the stock is dropping, users are going up. Alex says "no they aren't". Another person says "look at the stats", their active users are going up.

      What does the dumb fucker Alex say? "oh, lookie their stock price is falling".

      No shit, Alex, no one was arguing that Everyone on this fucking thread already said that. But you were proven wrong yet again and so rather than saying "oops, sorry, you are right", you fall back to stock price.

      You have mental problems. Serious mental problems.

      Source: I have a psychiatry background and a 3.5 sigma IQ

    22. Re:Growing pains by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      That's not a valid argument for the number of users.

      The stock is going down because the RATE of users is going down.

      That's not the same thing. If you need an explanation as to why, go ask someone else.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  6. What's so special about September 19th? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Couldn't they make that available on other days too?

    1. Re:What's so special about September 19th? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look, if you know a better way to celebrate National Butterscotch Pudding Day then I'd love to hear it.

    2. Re:What's so special about September 19th? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yarrrrrrr! Why, it's Talk Like a Pirate Day, ye scurvy dog!

    3. Re:What's so special about September 19th? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter makes room for extrrra-Rs. Got it.

    4. Re:What's so special about September 19th? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      How about grabbing a kiddie pool, a whole bunch of butterscotch pudding, and a very attractive member of the gender you are attracted to?

  7. Indifferent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I couldN'T care less.

  8. All messaging services are the same by grumbel5969 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The more time goes on, the more all the messaging services are becoming the same. Even today the differences between Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat and Co. is already rather slim, as they are all essentially used for the same things: post text, images or video to a group of people or the public. Even that fundamental 140 character limit on Twitter is constantly worked around by posting images of text or linking to sites like Twitlonger. The only real difference is the client, some client make it really fast to post video while other focus on images and text, but all of them allow you to do essentially the exact same things under the hood.

    What we are seeing here is essentially see the slow and painful reinvention of email with broadcast functionality. I could even see that turning into an open standard in another few years, as it's rather pointless to have so many apps doing the same thing and be incompatible with each other.

    1. Re:All messaging services are the same by vikingpower · · Score: 2

      What we are seeing here is essentially see the slow and painful reinvention of email with broadcast functionality. I could even see that turning into an open standard in another few years, as it's rather pointless to have so many apps doing the same thing and be incompatible with each other.

      Dude, you got yourself a start-up idea there, do you realize that ? Contact me if you do .

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    2. Re:All messaging services are the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, twentysomething internet startup hipsters couldn't possibly be reinventing old technology. They're way too smart for that!

    3. Re: All messaging services are the same by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Hey, give them a break, in another 10 years they might invent Usenet Newsgroups.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:All messaging services are the same by Entrope · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    5. Re:All messaging services are the same by SumterLiving · · Score: 1

      If you cannot see a huge difference between Twitter and Facebook you're not looking hard enough. But drama sells.

    6. Re:All messaging services are the same by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I know you're joking, but remember that Slack just got a multi-billion dollar buyout offer from Microsoft for making IRC a bit more pretty and extensible...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    7. Re:All messaging services are the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we are seeing here is essentially see the slow and painful reinvention of email with broadcast functionality.

      Except it's publicly readable without signing up to an email service and subscribing.

    8. Re:All messaging services are the same by grumbel5969 · · Score: 1

      Where is the huge difference? You have a linear news feed where you can post messages and others can comment on your messages. It's the same as everything else. Back when Twitter started it was a different thing, the 140 characters were all that you got and there was no integration of pictures, but that has been eroded for years, pictures, video and Co. are now all normal on Twitter and natively supported. Even the page layout is mostly the same with friends and photo boxes on the left and news feed on the right.

    9. Re:All messaging services are the same by grumbel5969 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what broadcasting means. The problem is that email never had native broadcasting capabilities, it only got bolted on via mailing lists, which lacked a standard interface and made subscribe and unsubscribe extremely cumbersome. The other big problem with mail is that it lacked persistence, if you subscribed to a mailing list in the mid of a discussion, you would miss out on everything that happened before. You could look it up in a mail archive, assuming somebody provided it, but it was again a cobbled together mess with no standard interface or integration into the mail client.

      Twitter, Facebook and Co. are solving those problems and giving people broadcasting functionality and persistence by default along with slightly better multimedia support. But what you end up with is essentially email reinvented with broadcast capabilities. You could take all those services and merge them into one, as they are all doing the same thing now.

    10. Re:All messaging services are the same by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

      81 char. TL;DR

  9. SMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    168

    God is behind this. Let's get him!

    1. Re:SMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "Hey, it's God! Let's get him!" ... which if they included it on the Simpsons would be the only funny joke this season.

  10. santa puta do vale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a filha da xuxa pedófila tá andando de ômega saindo de gravataí. provelmente indo busrcar mais crack em cachoeirinha com o leonardo.

  11. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Now I can give even more details when I drop a creamy behemoth from my cavernous bowels. #shittertwitter

  12. Swashbucklers by mattwarden · · Score: 1

    September 19th is International Talk Like a Pirate Day. The extra characters in Twitter should really move the needle on human progress starting immediately.

  13. Colour Change by coofercat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Other hot Social Media news:

    Twitter is planning to change their blue colour from #63aeee to #63aeed - date to be confirmed, but two sources claim it'll be October 12th.

    1. Re:Colour Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the twatter change is interesting because it has based around the limitation of SMS back-communications limits until now. Anyone not using their client or API access will be receiving that shit over the telco's network. So will they be getting multiple single line messages when this goes live?

      Okay, it's not that interesting really.

    2. Re:Colour Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's wrong.

  14. In related news by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    The gigantism trend of phones accelerates.
    Maybe that's one silver lining of prevalent obesity; it will make our phones look smaller.

    1. Re:In related news by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 1

      "Honey, does this phone make me look fat?"

  15. Feeling the pressure from Gab? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Curious enough now that there is a tiny service called Gab with a much larger limit on the text you fit in and that aims to work the same way twitter does, now they rise the limit... Is Jack that kind of scared?

  16. Mobile vs Webusers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If (twitter has mostly mobile users) {
     
    }

  17. Still 140 by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    Most people are missing the point. The 140 limit is still there. You will just no longer be penalized for including other content. As a heavy user, currently this was a big bugaboo because you never know how much a picture or link is going to reduce your count. I try to budget about 6, and sometimes it hits that, sometimes it goes clear up into the teens instead for no apparent reason. Its really annoying to have to change your message to make it look like it came from a 1337 D00D just to squeeze 5 characters back out of it, or delete the link.

    Not earth-shattering stuff to be sure, but its a big help to users, without touching the foundational idea of 140 characters or less messages.

    1. Re:Still 140 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but you are also missing something obvious. If quotes do not count against the limit, I can set up a "Twitionary" with individual tweets of every word I choose to transcribe in the order I get to them (probably alphabetical, because it's easy). Then, twits can tweet nearly unlimited walls of useless text by piecing together quotes of individual words from the Twitionary.

    2. Re:Still 140 by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      You can only quote one tweet at a time, and have it show up inline. At least with the standard Twitter apps I use. I suppose you could get around that by using recursion (quote tweets that themselves quote tweets), but that's already happening, and again only the first tweet in the stack gets place inline in the original.

    3. Re:Still 140 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, drat. I guess we have to stick to image links to jpegs of walls of text.

    4. Re:Still 140 by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Well, drat. I guess we have to stick to image links to jpegs of walls of text.

      Yup. That still works, and hyperlinks to webpages still work. If you really want >140 chars, you are still free to do those things, and if people don't want to read that much, they are still free to not RT, like, or follow you.

  18. How about machine-to-machine communication? by bozzy · · Score: 1

    Forget human conversations... With the 140 limit gone now I'm wondering if it will now be more usable as a public MQTT broker or other communication bus.

    Security and performance concerns aside, of course....

  19. "For Sale: Baby shoes, Never worn." by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "I didn't have time to write a short letter so I wrote a long one", is an old aphorism. Writing tightly and editing concisely takes skill and wit. Hemingway once wrote the shortest novel on a dare: "For Sale: Baby shoes, Never worn."

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re: "For Sale: Baby shoes, Never worn." by vikingpower · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good point. Conciseness was / is one of Twitter USPs, so to say, and now they ditch it. Diary of an announced catastrophe, this is going to be.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    2. Re: "For Sale: Baby shoes, Never worn." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite the rumors, that story isn't Hemingway's

    3. Re: "For Sale: Baby shoes, Never worn." by hackertourist · · Score: 2

      At the same time, Twitter forces everything to be reduced to a soundbite. Something we could use less of.

    4. Re: "For Sale: Baby shoes, Never worn." by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Was your comment in less than 140 chars?

      Nice.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re: "For Sale: Baby shoes, Never worn." by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      This change seems reasonable though.

      Being able to quote a full tweet for context and reply makes sense to me, not counting media does to a point too (though it looks like people just post text of longer posts frequently).

      Note: I don't use twitter, but it seems reasonable to define content as actual text and allow that to be 140 characters on the face of it.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re: "For Sale: Baby shoes, Never worn." by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      At the same time, Twitter forces everything to be reduced to a soundbite. Something we could use less of.

      Yes, but the world is full of soundbites. Arguably, almost all news is really just extended soundbites (or things of similar depth). Unless you're doing a 15-minute+ extended feature story on something or a 10,000-word essay, you're often not really getting into any complexity around an issue. The 5 or 6 paragraphs typically devoted to a "story" often oversimplify to such an extent that perhaps a 140-character summary would be preferable, along with a link to an actual extended essay on the topic.

      Twitter has its place. As someone who is naturally verbose (as my posts here attest), I think there's a value to such restrictions and concision at times.

    7. Re: "For Sale: Baby shoes, Never worn." by istartedi · · Score: 1

      For sale: web site, never profitable.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  20. desperation by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    Twitter is desperate to preserve itself as the premier platform for social signaling, manufactured outrage, and trolling; a platform where a character limit ensures that no rational argument or thoughtful analysis is possible. Keep going, Twitter, you're doing great!

  21. I have an idea! by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

    How about coming up with a business model?
    I've run a few businesses and figuring out how to make some money was usually something we did.

    1. Re:I have an idea! by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      There was a business plan but they never counted on making it to the IPO.

  22. More MPAA ammunition by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    This is just another culture-shattering consequence of piracy!

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  23. Flexible users? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    give users more flexibility

    I, for one, look forward to someone bending and twisting a few of these new, flexible twits.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  24. Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cuz if there's one thing the world needs it's more lengthy boring drivel from self-important minor celebrities, their wannabees and their stalkers.

  25. More is better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extending Characters = Bigger Twits?

  26. Time for Small.com by tepples · · Score: 1

    I can't count the number of Medium.com posts I have read which could be summed up in a couple of sentences

    Medium.com should start Small.com and encourage users to create an abstract of each article. Then Small.com would just have the abstracts.

  27. different limits by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Now they limit your messages based on politics and not on length.

  28. You are following other people by tepples · · Score: 1

    You incorrectly assume that I follow anyone on Twitter. My exposure to it is pretty much exclusively what other people find good enough to link to

    Then you are in fact following said "other people", even if said following is through a mechanism other than Twitter's follow button.

    1. Re: You are following other people by Entrope · · Score: 1

      What on earth are you going on about? I consume non-Twitter media, therefore I should stop following the horrible people on Twitter that I don't follow, and instead use my non-existent Twitter account to follow better people?

    2. Re: You are following other people by tepples · · Score: 1

      I consume non-Twitter media

      Nothing is being consumed.

      use my non-existent Twitter account to follow better people

      The word "follow" existed before Twitter. You view media published by particular people. Therefore, you follow those people.

    3. Re: You are following other people by Entrope · · Score: 1

      What part of "follow[] on Twitter" is unclear to you, you obnoxious idiot?

    4. Re: You are following other people by tepples · · Score: 1

      I accept that you don't follow people on Twitter. I was pointing out that you still follow people without doing so specifically on Twitter. If the people you follow off Twitter link you to garbage on Twitter, and you don't want to read that kind of garbage, then perhaps you could stop following them off Twitter.

      So to rephrase Anonymous Coward: You might want to consider following less terrible people on and off Twitter.

    5. Re: You are following other people by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I'll take your suggestion that I stop following CNN and BBC under advisement.

    6. Re:You are following other people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you are in fact following said "other people", even if said following is through a mechanism other than Twitter's follow button.

      Engaging in equivocation doesn't make your post insightful.

  29. At least I'll be partially cured of my OCD.. by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    With Twitter, I almost always try to have a tweet with correct English spelling, grammar and punctuation, and which takes up exactly 140 characters, using at most 3-4 hash tags. (Yes, I'm on the spectrum.)

    What am I going to do now? I hope I don't get Twittagoraphobia with all the space it will shower me with.

    --
    John_Chalisque
  30. Twitter Will Extend Its 140 Character Limit by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    ...to 141 characters! yaay!

  31. THIS IS THE LAST FUCKING STRAW by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    leaving Twitter for good
    goin' back to Baudot on paper tape
    shoulda stayed on the farm
    shoulda listened to my old man
    back to the howlin' old owl in the woods
    huntin' the horny back toad

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  32. The date is no coincidence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That means you can add more Arrrr's! http://talklikeapirate.com/wordpress/

  33. Mhmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the reason the limit exists just to make it easier to do large scale analysis on all the data twitter collects?

  34. Eventually the message body won't count either by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

    Eventually the message body won't count either. C'mon guys, give it up. It's 2016. Can we afford maybe 300 characters, when the payload of a tweet's metadata is already several kilobytes?