Agreed. I'm not a heavy Twitter user, but I'm not sure it's a good philosophy to force users to revise and revise until they get something unnaturally terse en

Agreed. I'm not a heavy Twitter user, but I'm not sure it's a good philosophy to force users to revise and revise until they get something unnaturally terse enough, after sacrificing precious space to ancillary items (at-mentions, or even hashtags) they can't necessarily control the length of. I can see value in brevity, but when it's forced, it may actually impede communication. It gets hacked around anyways, with multi-part tweets, even by Twitter's own developer account[0]. At the least, there are tweet clusters, where each individual tweet may be a complete sentence but doesn't effectively convey the entirety of what the author meant, without reading the surrounding tweets (in reverse order, of course.) At those points, it would be saner to abandon the limit. Or maybe treat it as a one-way linkblog to other places for discussion. [0] https://twitter.com/TwitterDev/status/530545195633618945 https://twitter.com/TwitterDev/status/530545195633618945