As with all 'rules' or 'laws' this limiting suffers from the reality that one size does not fit all.

I have read very valid justifications from responders here as to why this restriction seems o.k. to them. Equally, I have read valid justifications for why it is problematic.

I dislike imposed, all encompassing, restrictions, particularly those that are imposed rather than determined through consensus and give and take.

Our writing is not the same. Our output is not the same. The length or complexity of our content is not the same. When, where and how we write is not the same. How we organise and schedule is not the same. Whether we work at this all day or simply when it takes us will vary. Some of us will publish only our own material whilst others will publish for others.

Context is all too often ignored or simply not even considered by institutions, businesses, law-makers, rule-setters.

I value Medium being here but, as I have noted before, I dislike what, to me, seems a patronising and somewhat dismissive and unfriendly attitude when answering questions or issues raised by members. Of course, Medium is a business and its owners will run it as they will, unfortunately I feel, with a puerile but not uncommon attitude of: "If you don't like it, you don't have to stay."

So, because Medium appears to see itself as all wise and seems, at least to me, unwilling to seriously consider the views of members, the choice about whether to stay or leave is the position in which we find ourselves.

The question then: Are the benefits of the platform to you greater than any niggles or impediments you have with it?