clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile
We have a request We’re aiming to add 2,500 contributions this month to support our clear and accessible policy coverage and so much more. Will you help us get there by making a contribution today?

Filed under:

Twitter users can't stop tweeting about how much they don't want tweets to get longer

Those granted the new 280-character limit mainly used it to protest the new 280-character limit.

By Aja Romano
bax_up/Twitter
Aja Romano writes about pop culture, media, and ethics. Before joining Vox in 2016, they were a staff reporter at the Daily Dot. A 2019 fellow of the National Critics Institute, they’re considered an authority on fandom, the internet, and the culture wars.

So tweets are longer now — but although the feature has so far only been rolled out for a few apparently random Twitter accounts, the majority of the platform’s users have rallied against the change. Among the people who trended #Twitter280 for most of Wednesday, the vast majority seem to prefer the traditional 140-character limit, instead of the new doubling to 280 characters.

While it’s no secret that the fabled 140-character limit has long been a crucial part of Twitter’s identity as a platform and has shaped the “tweet” into its own specific format, what might come as a surprise is how strident and pointed the calls to keep tweets shorter have been.

A large segment of those protesting the change see it as a diversion from more essential improvements to Twitter, like bettering its harassment reporting tools, killing the platform’s giant bot networks, taking an unequivocal stance against hate speech, and banning the Nazis, a phrase that has become all but rote across the site.

Then there are those who just want things to stay shorter and sweeter, because Twitter, they feel, is obnoxious enough without allowing more words.

When asked what he’d do if given the extra 140 characters, Twitter elite Lin-Manuel Miranda rejected the concept philosophically:

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who tweeted about the change initially yesterday, responded cheerfully and positively late Tuesday evening while sidestepping the main criticisms placed before him.

…to which the response was predictable.

Still, among the sea of naysayers could be found a handful of people focusing on the positives:

And a few people with their priorities well in hand:

We're here to shed some clarity

One of our core beliefs here at Vox is that everyone needs and deserves access to the information that helps them understand the world, regardless of whether they can pay for a subscription. With the 2024 election on the horizon, more people are turning to us for clear and balanced explanations of the issues and policies at stake. We’re so grateful that we’re on track to hit 85,000 contributions to the Vox Contributions program before the end of the year, which in turn helps us keep this work free. We need to add 2,500 contributions this month to hit that goal. Will you make a contribution today to help us hit this goal and support our policy coverage? Any amount helps.

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Next Up In Culture

The Latest

Why Biden’s latest gun violence initiative has activists optimistic

By Marin Cogan

A climate scientist on how to recognize the new climate change denial

By Avishay Artsy

Everything you need to know about the UAW strike to look cool at parties

By Emily Stewart and Ellen Ioanes

5 new books (and one very old one) to read in order to understand capitalism

By Noel King

The indictment of Sen. Bob Menendez, explained

By Andrew Prokop

The Senate is having a meltdown over whether it’s okay to wear shorts

By Li Zhou

Sign up for the newsletter Sign up for Vox Recommends

Get curated picks of the best Vox journalism to read, watch, and listen to every week, from our editors.