Should brevity be the soul of communication, or should time and format bend to fit the desired message to be communicated, in full? How much do we lose, or possibly gain, by restricting message sizes?
Twitter’s 140 character limit makes it easier to disseminate and digest communication, and does provide an equalizer for posts from your average John or Jane Q. Twitterer and politicians and celebrities.
But, how much quality do we lose, how much context and descriptivity do we lose by constantly making information more and more concise. Even on Facebook, where there is no limit to posts, the democratic nature of the Wall dictates that everyone should have their 15 minutes of attention and then let us concentrate on the next post.
Is it acceptable for communication to be boiled down to the key points, or is the detail, tense and tone the mortar that holds the bricks of communication together? When following friends, family or politicians/industry figures on social media sites, especially Twitter, do you ever regret that the communication is so condensed, or is it that impromptu nature of posts that give real insight into the un-rehearsed thoughts of a person? The ability to get an un-rehearsed opinion or train of thought from a person is great and something I am very interested in, even though it does get some foolish people in trouble.
I guess one key thing I am asking is, do the character limits, whether imposed or expected, serve a useful purpose of cutting off people who ramble on too mu-
Look out for the epic, dark fantasy ebooks of Goodreads-rated author T.P. Grish at: