Twitter after the 2007 SXSWi was not considered a sewer, even with 140 characters. The River Fleet, in Roman times, was not a sewer. Most assuredly Twitter did not build their system as a sewer.
Twitter doubled its limit, so by your definition is no longer 'ideal'. The shitposting doesn't seem to be affected. Even if 140 is ideal, why should I think that unlimited length would somehow prevent problems?
I prefer to think you didn't think through the metaphor of your 'Executive Summary' well enough.
Only brought up Twitter because of original article. If you ask me, that entire industry--Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc--is a sewer, and always has been a sewer.
Whether it's social media, online games, or something entirely new, when there is a) real-time feedback, b) a profit motive, and c) a large enough user base to conduct experiments on, it is only a matter of time before someone gets the bright idea of hiring a few data scientists to optimize the rube-fleecing. Then it becomes Pavlov's human.
The whole awful business is the crack-pipe of our upper-middle class, and the guys who made those crack pipes knew exactly what they were doing. If a bunch of alt-right shitposters shoved Wil Wheaton off of the pipe, they unintentionally did him a favor.
And as far as original analogy went, sewers were designed for sewage. Rivers weren't. It is not that complicated.
Wheaton did not refer to early Twitter as a sewer. That's why my comment points out that your "executive summary" is a misnomer. It is your interpretation. It may even be a correct interpretation. But it is not an accurate summary of what Wheaton wrote.
