Show off your thoughts with Twitter Blue's new 4000 character limit

Posted:
in General Discussion
Twitter is offering its Twitter Blue subscribers a new perk in a considerably increased 4,000-character limit -- with some caveats.

Twitter Blue users can post 4,000 character tweets
Twitter Blue users can post 4,000 character tweets


Just a day before Twitter's free API goes away, the company hopes to generate some good PR and goodwill with a new feature rollout -- 4,000 character limits. Subscribers to Twitter Blue will be able to post 4,000 character posts, up from 280 one the feature rolls out in full.

Non-subscribers can still see the 4,000-character posts, and everyone will see the first 280 characters of a tweet truncated in their timeline. A "Show more" button will appear to guide users to the full post.

The new character limit will prove to be a double-edged sword. Twitter Blue users will finally be able to post much more content in a single post rather than relying on threads, but threads generate more interaction and, soon, ad revenue.

Twitter recently also announced that influencers would be able to benefit from getting revenue from ads shown in reply threads to their tweets. Posting a 4,000-character tweet instead of 15 separate tweets in a thread cuts the possibility of a tweet going viral and having an ad generate revenue in replies.

need more than 280 characters to express yourself?

we know that lots of you do and while we love a good thread, sometimes you just want to Tweet everything all at once. we get that.

so we're introducing longer Tweets! you're gonna want to check this out. tap this https://t.co/lge9udRzLE

-- Twitter Blue (@TwitterBlue)


Twitter owner and CEO Elon Musk previously stated that much of the company's decision-making will be done on the fly. Meaning that features will roll out and be removed at a moment's notice as the company finds what works best for monetizing the platform.

It appears that the 4,000-character limit is a result of the never-released Twitter Write feature.

A Twitter Blue subscription is $8 per month or $11 per month when subscribed via the iOS app. Features of the service include improved visibility of posts, half the number of ads, and longer video posts.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,101member
    Oh boy, a bigger Landfill doesn’t make for better garbage….
    radarthekatOferilarynxbestkeptsecretchiaronnwilliamlondonFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 13
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    I’ll go on record admitting I consider Elon near hero-status for taking over Twitter and exposing the corruption.

    That said, I don’t agree with several of his decisions regarding Twitter as a business. He didn’t buy it *just* to be altruistic, and fear for what it might become. What he/they did to Twitter 3rd party apps was really uncalled for. That’s the kind of thing you do with advanced notice.

    I do support this character expansion limit, but primarily to make threads unnecessary. Sometimes you just want (or more, need to) post a few paragraphs or include some information, and having to break it up across a dozen tweets doesn’t benefit anyone, IMO.

    What I don’t get (if I’m understanding correctly), is the showing the summary with ‘more’ button for non-Twitter-Blue, but for Blue, will it just display the whole thing? I think it would be better to have the more for everyone, as having some huge ‘tweets’ is going to make using Twitter harder, I’d think.

    danox said:
    Oh boy, a bigger Landfill doesn’t make for better garbage….
    Garbage is everywhere. If you don’t know how to sift through it, you’re in trouble. But, sometimes more data is necessary, especially to make or rebut a point. It is a welcome addition, I’m just not sure of the implementation. Like it or not, Twitter is where it is at for a lot of information flow. I don’t think that is going to change.
    dewmewilliamlondonwatto_cobrabyronl
  • Reply 3 of 13
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,390member
    What was wrong with threads?
    Oh that's right threads allow for sensible debate as each point needs its own tweet and therefore counter points can address directly.
    The new wall of text allows any sensible counter to be sunk below a sea of noise. 
    cgWerksOfertokyojimuchiaronnFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 13
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    mattinoz said:
    What was wrong with threads?
    Oh that's right threads allow for sensible debate as each point needs its own tweet and therefore counter points can address directly.
    The new wall of text allows any sensible counter to be sunk below a sea of noise. 
    Fair point, but it runs the other way as well. It’s easy to just post a short tweet challenging something, but often takes a lot more words, clarity, and data to rebut something.

    The main issue with threads, I guess, is just having to keep breaking stuff up, and all the sub-threads under a point part-way in a series and such. This *might* clean things up a bit, but who knows.

    A point, then response, then response, etc. will remain a thread. It just won’t *have* to be a 4 or 5 tweet response, but can be a single tweet responding adequately.

    That said, I do fear the ‘wall of text’ aspect if it gets abused. I don’t think most people will read bigger tweets anyway, as they barely read headlines as it is (or even a 280 character tweet well enough to often respond well).
    williamlondonFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 13
    Soon you will be able to publish a whole PhD dissertation on Twitter.
    watto_cobracgWerks
  • Reply 6 of 13
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,390member
    cgWerks said:
    mattinoz said:
    What was wrong with threads?
    Oh that's right threads allow for sensible debate as each point needs its own tweet and therefore counter points can address directly.
    The new wall of text allows any sensible counter to be sunk below a sea of noise. 
    Fair point, but it runs the other way as well. It’s easy to just post a short tweet challenging something, but often takes a lot more words, clarity, and data to rebut something.

    The main issue with threads, I guess, is just having to keep breaking stuff up, and all the sub-threads under a point part-way in a series and such. This *might* clean things up a bit, but who knows.

    A point, then response, then response, etc. will remain a thread. It just won’t *have* to be a 4 or 5 tweet response, but can be a single tweet responding adequately.

    That said, I do fear the ‘wall of text’ aspect if it gets abused. I don’t think most people will read bigger tweets anyway, as they barely read headlines as it is (or even a 280 character tweet well enough to often respond well).
    Sure they could have improved the old system and added a proper threading system even to tie the conversation together better. allowed a modest increase in character count to make it all flow better. 4000char just seems to be the very lazy answer for people who think free speech mean they need to be heard even when they have no substance. 
    ronnwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 13
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,876moderator

    The type of thought encouraged by the Internet tends toward nurturing the nondogmatic, the experimental idea, the quip, the global perspective, the interdisciplinary synthesis, and the uninhibited, often emotional, response. Many participants prefer the quality of writing on the Net to book writing because Net-writing is of a conversational peer-to-peer style, frank and communicative, rather than precise and overwritten.

    - Kevin Kelly

    Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World, 2009 

    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 13
    mknelsonmknelson Posts: 1,128member
    cgWerks said:
    mattinoz said:
    What was wrong with threads?
    Oh that's right threads allow for sensible debate as each point needs its own tweet and therefore counter points can address directly.
    The new wall of text allows any sensible counter to be sunk below a sea of noise. 
    Fair point, but it runs the other way as well. It’s easy to just post a short tweet challenging something, but often takes a lot more words, clarity, and data to rebut something.
    Yup, that's the whole point of the Gish Gallop. Spew out short statements of nonsense that require long replies to rebut, then more nonsense before you finish your rebuttal.
    radarthekatAlex_VFileMakerFellerwatto_cobracgWerks
  • Reply 9 of 13
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,876moderator
    mknelson said:
    cgWerks said:
    mattinoz said:
    What was wrong with threads?
    Oh that's right threads allow for sensible debate as each point needs its own tweet and therefore counter points can address directly.
    The new wall of text allows any sensible counter to be sunk below a sea of noise. 
    Fair point, but it runs the other way as well. It’s easy to just post a short tweet challenging something, but often takes a lot more words, clarity, and data to rebut something.
    Yup, that's the whole point of the Gish Gallop. Spew out short statements of nonsense that require long replies to rebut, then more nonsense before you finish your rebuttal.
    Just read that entire wiki page.  Very informative. Really sheds light on the politics of the last six years.  
    watto_cobrabyronlcgWerks
  • Reply 10 of 13
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,094member
    Personally, I'm still rooting for the whole thing to collapse. Other than a few occasions where I was able to have some pleasant and entertaining direct interactions with a well-known comedian/writer, I found twitter to be an anxiety-inducing time-suck.

    On a macro level, it's incredibly destructive, particularly with media figures engaging in an information feedback loop that creates what they obliviously call "the narrative." This is where running hot-takes converge on a popularized perspective on current events that then gets regurgitated online, in print and on-air, which then legitimizes as given fact information that is moored to nothing more than what "people are saying." This phenomenon is then ripe for manipulation by political and state-sponsored progenitors of disinformation. The result is that fact-based information is constantly buried by an astro-turfed "narrative" that is not only counter-factual, but often manipulated to rapidly dominate the public square and then disappear just as quickly, supplanted by the next algorithmic wave.

    Not too long ago, I decided to delete my account and never looked back. It was definitely a good decision on a personal level. I am hoping that Mr. Musk's repugnantly impulsive management of his ridiculously impulsive acquisition is causing more and more people to make similar decisions, and that this will ultimately fragment the highly destructive narrative engine that has been corroding western democracy for the past few years.
    roundaboutnowAlex_VwilliamlondonFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 13
    Why isn't Twitter being booted from the App Store for not enforcing (reversing) their own terms of service?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 13
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,746member
    cgWerks said:
    danox said:
    Oh boy, a bigger Landfill doesn’t make for better garbage….
    Garbage is everywhere. If you don’t know how to sift through it, you’re in trouble. But, sometimes more data is necessary, especially to make or rebut a point. It is a welcome addition, I’m just not sure of the implementation. Like it or not, Twitter is where it is at for a lot of information flow. I don’t think that is going to change.
    The only reason I ever turn to Twitter is for timely information about events which are currently happening, preferably from the sources who would have access to that information and not just people throwing random speculation out into the universe. Once something becomes more widely known, Twitter is possibly one of the worst sources of information as its search capabilities are designed around maximizing profit, not getting you to reliable information quickly.

    As for having good debates around topics, I much prefer the organization of Reddit.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 13
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    AppleZulu said:
    … On a macro level, it's incredibly destructive, particularly with media figures engaging in an information feedback loop that creates what they obliviously call "the narrative." This is where running hot-takes converge on a popularized perspective on current events that then gets regurgitated online, in print and on-air, which then legitimizes as given fact information that is moored to nothing more than what "people are saying." This phenomenon is then ripe for manipulation by political and state-sponsored progenitors of disinformation. The result is that fact-based information is constantly buried by an astro-turfed "narrative" that is not only counter-factual, but often manipulated to rapidly dominate the public square and then disappear just as quickly, supplanted by the next algorithmic wave. …
    It is interesting, if you listen carefully, how many news articles depend on ‘sources’ or even social media posts now.

    But, I guess it was this way in the past as well, it just took a bit more work. The CIA had to get some story into a paper somewhere in the world, which a major USA publication would reference, and on and on. Now, it just takes a few tweets or Facebook post by the right people.

    auxio said:
    … The only reason I ever turn to Twitter is for timely information about events which are currently happening, preferably from the sources who would have access to that information and not just people throwing random speculation out into the universe. Once something becomes more widely known, Twitter is possibly one of the worst sources of information as its search capabilities are designed around maximizing profit, not getting you to reliable information quickly.

    As for having good debates around topics, I much prefer the organization of Reddit.
    Yes, it is quite good for that (timely info as it happens). That’s how I got my start down the rabbit-hole of finally recognizing just how bad the MSM was (around the time of the Charlottesville event). I knew there was bias and such, but the level of theatrics and outright lies wasn’t quite as evident to me. Some indie journalist cell phone footage right as things are happening, can uncover a lot of BS.

    I have love/hate with Reddit. The moderators are insane in many areas, and for most things even slightly controversial, it is a childish and uninformed crowd. For certain subjects (especially product support), it has been quite awesome.
Sign In or Register to comment.