140 characters or less
For some reason I've been struck lately with how strange the development of twitter seems.
Twitter, as I understand it, started off with two attractive features: 1) the ability to update from mobile phone; 2) a feed which 'pushed' messages to clients rather than waiting for them to refresh.
Because of #1, posts were limited to the length of an SMS message - ie. 140 (8-bit) characters. Thus microblogging was invented, the method of a stream of small posts, and the condensing of thoughts down to a couple of sentences.
What strikes me is how arbitrary this limit was. The SMS standard was developed in 1984 and was designed to use the downtime between mobile phone calls, making it a virtually costless service for carriers. In the two decades between the creation of SMS and the launch of twitter in 2006, both the technology and use of mobile phones developed immensely. However not only did the 140 byte limit on mobile phone messages persist, but so did the idea that the sending of messages was limited by cost.
Twitter didn't just apply the 140 character limit to posts by phone though. It also applied it to posts made from computers as well. Superficially there seems to be no strong reason for this, although it probably made developing the systems easier. More importantly, it made sure that people used the site in a similar way (albeit with great scope for different subjects). A twitter feed consists of short messages, not a mix of short messages and longer blog posts. You know what you're getting when you read it.
This limitation can encourages posters. Users with little time don't have to compete with lengthy posts. Those with quick, snappy ideas don't have to develop them into ponderous essays. Twitter forcibly lowers the bar for participation. There's also the challenge that appeals to some people, of fitting what you want to say into that small space.
If by 2006 it had become standard to send longer messages from mobile phones, or if twitter had decided to allow people to make posts of any length, would we have seen this phenomenon develop? Was it deliberately set up like this, or are these effects accidental? To me, it seems like a good example of how contingent social effects are; how much social phenomena are shaped not by clever ideas, but by anachronistic or obscure technological factors.
Twitter, as I understand it, started off with two attractive features: 1) the ability to update from mobile phone; 2) a feed which 'pushed' messages to clients rather than waiting for them to refresh.
Because of #1, posts were limited to the length of an SMS message - ie. 140 (8-bit) characters. Thus microblogging was invented, the method of a stream of small posts, and the condensing of thoughts down to a couple of sentences.
What strikes me is how arbitrary this limit was. The SMS standard was developed in 1984 and was designed to use the downtime between mobile phone calls, making it a virtually costless service for carriers. In the two decades between the creation of SMS and the launch of twitter in 2006, both the technology and use of mobile phones developed immensely. However not only did the 140 byte limit on mobile phone messages persist, but so did the idea that the sending of messages was limited by cost.
Twitter didn't just apply the 140 character limit to posts by phone though. It also applied it to posts made from computers as well. Superficially there seems to be no strong reason for this, although it probably made developing the systems easier. More importantly, it made sure that people used the site in a similar way (albeit with great scope for different subjects). A twitter feed consists of short messages, not a mix of short messages and longer blog posts. You know what you're getting when you read it.
This limitation can encourages posters. Users with little time don't have to compete with lengthy posts. Those with quick, snappy ideas don't have to develop them into ponderous essays. Twitter forcibly lowers the bar for participation. There's also the challenge that appeals to some people, of fitting what you want to say into that small space.
If by 2006 it had become standard to send longer messages from mobile phones, or if twitter had decided to allow people to make posts of any length, would we have seen this phenomenon develop? Was it deliberately set up like this, or are these effects accidental? To me, it seems like a good example of how contingent social effects are; how much social phenomena are shaped not by clever ideas, but by anachronistic or obscure technological factors.