Probably around the same time you realize the abstract is irrelevant and only the claims in the patent matter. The abstract will always be general and sound like something that exists. The specific implementation claimed in the patent may or may not actually be novel, and Twitter may or may not actually be infringing on it. Those are the questions that will be decided in court. It may be that no interpretation of the claims is both expansive enough to include what Twitter does and narrow enough to exclude prior art, but you can't tell that from the abstract.