Yeah, and if you live in a submarine long enough your eyes unlearn to focus on things that are far away..
Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispenses with was allowed to survive.
Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum. Newspeak was founded on the English language as we now know it, though many Newspeak sentences, even when not containing newly created words, would be barely intelligible to an English-speaker of our own day.
-- George Orwell, "The Principles of Newspeak"
Yet he also wrote this, in "Politics and the English Language":
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics'. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.
Of course brevity is generally good, and bloat is generally bad. But you can be concise even in 5000 words if the subject is complex, and waste space even in 140 characters. But one thing is sure, a hard limit of 140 makes discussion of anything remotely complex impossible. That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater... the mere possibility of bloat hurts communication less than the impossibility to elaborate, at all, ever. (posting links, or twee+ etc, don't really count IMHO)