  The design of online platforms is both critically important and challenging,
as any changes may lead to unintended consequences, and it can be hard to
predict how users will react. Here we conduct a case study of a particularly
important real-world platform design change: Twitter's decision to double the
character limit from 140 to 280 characters to soothe users' need to ''cram'' or
''squeeze'' their tweets, informed by modeling of historical user behavior. In
our analysis, we contrast Twitter's anticipated pre-intervention predictions
about user behavior with actual post-intervention user behavior: Did the
platform design change lead to the intended user behavior shifts, or did a gap
between anticipated and actual behavior emerge? Did different user groups react
differently? We find that even though users do not ''cram'' as much under 280
characters as they used to under 140 characters, emergent ``cramming'' at the
new limit seems to not have been taken into account when designing the platform
change. Furthermore, investigating textual features, we find that, although
post-intervention ''crammed'' tweets are longer, their syntactic and semantic
characteristics remain similar and indicative of ''squeezing''. Applying the
same approach as Twitter policy-makers, we create updated counterfactual
estimates and find that the character limit would need to be increased further
to reduce cramming that re-emerged at the new limit. We contribute to the rich
literature studying online user behavior with an empirical study that reveals a
dynamic interaction between platform design and user behavior, with immediate
policy and practical implications for the design of socio-technical systems.
