I prefer it because it forces distillation to core ideas, consumable quickly. Busy people have too little time to read too much verbiage.

And there is a mutually understood degree of nuance. There is no space to consider every route of uncertainty or qualify every statement. You can say "the Earth is round" instead of "most of us agree that the Earth very very likely exists and is very likely to be round".

> By enforcing a character limit you only allow a certain type of post to be made

Yes, the one where all nuance and detail is lost after being trimmed to death so it can exist under the arbitrary limit and is much easier to misunderstand because the author couldn't put all of their thoughts in writing.

It does help with engagement though.

I think that the breakdown of public discourse in the US in the last 15ish years is directly attributable to Twitter. When the main mode of engagement with others in politics is to drop 140-char hot takes, it shouldn't be surprising people hate each other. The world would genuinely be a much better place, in my opinion, if Twitter or its like had never existed.

On a side note: a platform can (potentially) provide a filter that will show user only posts shorter than length L1. Or longer than L1.

>IMO it makes for better content.

Sorry but this even sounds wrong. You can write an eternal masterpiece in any form. Short story, a poem, a novel, an anecdote even.

In fact shorter form is more challenging. You have less room for a mistake. And lets be honest: most people are terrible writers|composers|painters etc.

This is one of the reasons you see threads and services that can present you threads in a more convenient form.