Conversations in 140 Characters or Less are not Exactly Meaningful

The character limit is not the bottleneck. Twitter-like services aren't good at conversation because of the latency. Everyone here has experienced chat/IM. The reason you can have an actual conversation there is that it's rapid-fire.

That's why we've focused on reducing the latency for ShopTalk. Even using HTTP and comet, we've been able to give it a real interactive, rapid-fire feel. Chat isn't as sexy as newer trends like microblogging, but it's far more useful.

On the contrary, I would argue that conversations of more than 140 characters are not conversations at all. They're speeches, talks, blog posts, etc.

When you converse with someone, you need to stop talking sometimes and listen to what they have to say.

Beyond latency, it's also about the conversation interface, and the engagement model with the participants.

This seems to be overlooking the potential for depth in brevity by utilizing links, media, etc.

Newsflash: some forms of information exchange have limitations that prevent them from being useful for every single possible aspect of communication.

You don't drive a Vespa across the Atlantic Ocean and you don't use a 747 to go to the grocery store. Having an extended conversation on twitter is as silly as trying to send attachments via phone or publishing a peer reviewed research paper via lyrical poem. Recognize that all forms of communication have their strengths, weaknesses, and limits, and know when you're abusing a particular form of communication and stretching it beyond it's boundaries of usefulness.

FEWER

You're not awesome because you allow longer comments than Twitter. Trying to define yourself as such is utterly moronic.