It's not ironic, it's his point. The same people complaining about having more characters have been using images of text to get around the 140 character limit. Their complaining doesn't make sense.

>The same people complaining about having more characters have been using images of text to get around the 140 character limit.

Are they? This claim seems highly unlikely. Do you know of any specific critics of this new policy who have posted such images?

and reading his message was annoying because too long. it could have fitted in 3 short sentences (of, granted, potentially up to 250 chars)

or they just post multiple tweets all in a row if they run out of space in the 140 characters.

Like you, I read Dorsey's post unable to tell whether he was for increasing the limit (and using the image to prove his point) or against increasing the limit (and oblivious to the contradiction). Thus illustrating another big limitation of Twitter: the difficulty of understanding the context of a single tweet.

I don't think that's what he was explaining. To me, this reads as Jack saying essentially, "I like the 140-character limit, but sometimes you just need more text, and the current solution of having to tweet images like this is stupid, so we're looking into how to do it better without compromising the common case. I don't know exactly what we'll do yet, but we know there's value in short text and there's also value to long text."

Seems like he was trying to convey a message -- being a bit meta about the problem with the character limitation perhaps?

It's just as ironic that his post to answer whether Twitter would support a 140+ character count neither said they would or wouldn't be changing the limit by using a screenshot of text more than 140 characters.

I believe this post to be a huge joke. All meta, no value. He's totally messing with us. Funny.