Sorry, maybe I rage-read-into GP's comment too much. I interpreted it as "this is a garbage format, here's a paragraph that would've sufficed".

What I'm arguing is that adding pictures/memes/space/cadence to information can be helpful to readers who aren't familiar with the subject area. Twitter makes that easy, and also has a broad reach.

That bar for readability is extremely low though. 260 characters at a time with pictures in between is basically a children’s picture book. I don’t think the GP’s comment is being unreasonable.