The pub analogy or even the Facebook group isn't very good.

Tweeting involves getting your short thoughts evaluated and rated by strangers at scale! You're also regularly aware of the properties required to (potentially) go viral.

It is far more difficult, by design, to encourage better conversations there.

Right, and I think most conversations in real-time (like in a pub) involve a decent amount of back-and-forth; most don't consist of people trading long blog-post-length monologues. (Though I suppose there's a certain sort of person who pontificates while drunk.)

While I'm not a big fan of Twitter, "the character limit encourages a weird conversational style" is not on my list of grievances at all.

Few years ago I used to have great conversations on Twitter but now there are too many ppl and many do it full time like a job or something, conditioned by the reward mechanisms to get those Likes and build social media influence. That changes what kind of conversations are possible.

I see Twitter as mostly a broadcast medium where you go to get the latest info on some event.

Conversations the kind that feel natural and human dont have a weird distracting real time ticker above my head scoring every dumb thing that flits through my mind.

"many do it full time like a job or something, conditioned by the reward mechanisms to get those Likes and build social media influence."

Without going into the backstory, there was a period of time where I had to follow about 100 very specific people. I also happen to know how successful these people were financially.

Those who were the most successful financially tweeted the least and those who were the least successful financially tweeted the most. Then there was those who didn't tweet at all because they had no financial incentive to and their egos weren't contingent upon it.