I'm reminded of when Facebook first eliminated the formatting constraints on status updates, so that users could simply enter text instead of adapting their message to the "___ is __ing" convention. At the time, I'm sure there was some Slate article decrying the move because it would make Facebook just another website.<p>Personally, I tended to agree: it seemed like some of the quirky charm of Facebook had been needlessly killed. But I was wrong. The communicative potential of Facebook never would have ripened if status updates had remained so constricted. The original novelty of the medium itself gave way to the sustained novelty of diverse messages.<p>What does that mean for Twitter? I'm not sure.<p>Its ongoing success chastens me, because when I heard about it, the idea sounded idiotic. Why use a protocol that imposed a 140 character limit? Well, there is clearly some utility, given how many active users Twitter has. But it is also obvious that many of those same users are frustrated by the limitations of what they can express.<p>If I were running Twitter, I would take a middle path: Keep the 140 character limit on "Tweets" but integrate a new type of public message without a character limit. (Perhaps the 'subject line' of the new message class would be a Tweet, which would expand into the full text when clicked.) This seems like the best way to provide users an easier means of expressing themselves without destroying Twitter as they know it.