A lot of factors here.

In general, my high level note is kind of non-specific, that I am extremely hestiant to govern by fear, that too often it generalized specific niche behaviors while ignoring very positive healthy aspects of the subject. Fear without demonization is difficult to pull off, but I can confess, this is a bit of a slippery slope argument. Still, I far prefer regulation based on positive behaviors, based on better lights.

There's a lot of really good comments, challenges & issues you'be raised here. Im not trying to refute here, but there's a lot of things Im not certain on or have comments on.

> When your word amount is strictly limited, you cannot really discuss about things.

I've never felt this limit. I quite like having a series of replies, where I can break up my responses into different pieces. And I like how people can reply to individual parts of my reply. It makes it clear how people align with the various pieces of a discussion, rather than writers and readers having to figure that out for themselves.

The constraint on size creates a much richer structure of information that greatly aids discussion, in my view.

> Algorithm-based platforms pick usually posts based on extreme ends.

Im not sure how longer posts changes the algorithms fairly blind desire to drive engagement, which yes, can exacerbate/amplify extreme positions.

> If someone says something you don't like, you are more likely to like or share a reply, which somehow outsmarts and counters this original post. And as your word amount is limited, you will need to use stronger words to get attention and rise emotions on people. You are rewarded for expressing extreme opposite in a smart way.

Feeling very dualist on this. I heavily agree & disageee. This is a pretty interesting section to me, good challenge.

I think we overascribe how much people tailor their toots to get amplified.

Brevity is the soup of wit, because it feels good: the simple appeal of something small & compact that makes sense. We're not writing short & hot because we are forced to. We're doing it because we can reduce the situation down, provide a neutron-star dense distillation of perspective, a place to see the dielectic from. That is enormously rewarding to compact the idea & concerns & reply, to pull off a real view, briefly.

But it of course risks reductionism, and it doesnt leave a lot of explanation, or acknowledge the subtleties, or meet in the middle.

I still have hard time seeing post-size as having a strong relation to the specified problem here. We can make longer posts, with threads, and do... when the situation calls for it.

> Writing well articulated multi-post replies won't get much attention, as they usually don't rise emotions for masses, and algorithm won't pick them anyway as attention is not in single post.

I dont think allowing longer posts will change this dynamic in any way. Long posts are less appealing & less popular, broken up across multi-replies or not.

The way I can see myself being wrong about this is that upvotes are distributed over a wider range of posts, rather tham concentrated into a single post.

But there's two other counter-factors. Often on HN I run into comments where Im absolutely loving the post, so happy to see something expressed so well. But then it takes a turn. Something goes off the rails or it uses a bad argument or comes to a bad conclusion. Being too big is huge risk.

Also, for a long thread, many people will have multiple upvotes. There wont be a single comment with massive upvotes, but in aggregate the thread probably has many more upvotes total. If the algorithms arent properly looking across threads to promote & surface, that doesnt seem like it should mean changing the medium to adjust to the algorithm, it seems like changing the algorithm to understand the medium should also be a considered possibility.