I don't see it. Both could be used interchangeably as needed
For me, the most poignant idea within that video was the desire of the speaker to get away with as few words as possible while the listener has the fundamentally contrary requirement for maximum detail, predicating the use of a large vocabulary to achieve clarity and precision.
These days, we have the wonderful example of this theory in action with the use of txt spk in which the speaker will go to the most astonishing lengths to achieve the necessary brevity, simultaneously sacrificing accuracy of meaning. Emoticons may go some way in redressing this imbalance but nobody in their right mind would suggest that txt spk would be a suitable language for, say, the drafting of laws. Yet, there would appear to be a significant probability that txt spk with all its vagaries, inaccuracies and incapability of precision may become embedded within the language within the next generation or two.
Much of the greatest work throughout history was achieved when scholars had as much space as they required to express and examine their ideas i.e. within sensible limits, a book could be made as large as necessary. Imposing a limit of a few hundred characters could end up becoming the biggest step backwards since an ancient scribe had to fit his entire treatise on one side of a slab of stone.