pb 插入報(bào)列在此處不

Twitter’s recent move to put notices on tweets themselves is one of the most controversial social media features during our times. As a design technologist, I can’t help but wonder the decision-making process behind it. It’s a perfect example of how a seemingly small feature can invoke polarizing responses from its various user groups, in this case, trigger a national debate about the underlying issue — freedom of speech. I am intrigued by this bold move and want to document my thoughts about the product design choices it entails.

Twitter最近在自己的推文上發(fā)布通知的舉動(dòng)是我們時(shí)代最具爭(zhēng)議的社交媒體功能之一。 作為一名設(shè)計(jì)技術(shù)人員，我不禁想知道背后的決策過(guò)程。 這是一個(gè)看似很小的功能如何調(diào)用其各個(gè)用戶(hù)群體的兩極分化回應(yīng)的完美示例，在這種情況下，引發(fā)了有關(guān)根本問(wèn)題(言論自由)的全國(guó)性辯論。 我對(duì)這一大膽的舉動(dòng)感到很感興趣，并希望記錄下我對(duì)產(chǎn)品設(shè)計(jì)選擇的想法。

I started researching the topic by reading Twitter’s Notices on Twitter policy page. A skim tells me there are several types of notices Twitter can post on a tweet or an account. A recurring theme I noticed is that Twitter describes the purpose of these notices as providing context. It’s not fact-checking, not labeling, not altering the speech in any way. It’s providing context. It’s a very neutral choice of words.

我通過(guò)閱讀Twitter政策頁(yè)面上的Twitter聲明開(kāi)始研究該主題。 略讀告訴我，Twitter可以在推文或帳戶(hù)上發(fā)布幾種通知。 我注意到一個(gè)反復(fù)出現(xiàn)的主題是Twitter將這些通知的目的描述為提供上下文 。 這不是事實(shí)檢查，不是標(biāo)簽，也不是以任何方式改變言論。 它提供了上下文 。 這是非常中性的詞語(yǔ)選擇。

Among these notices, the most interesting, perhaps the most controversial one is the fact-checking label:

在這些通知中，最有趣的，也許是最具爭(zhēng)議的是事實(shí)檢查標(biāo)簽：

Right away, the warning icon caught my eyes. It’s unusually larger than all the surrounding icons and text. One might argue that it’s almost too large. It appears the label has gone through iterations because the example given on the policy page is different:

立即，警告圖標(biāo)引起了我的注意。 它比周?chē)乃袌D標(biāo)和文本大得多。 有人可能會(huì)說(shuō)它太大了。 標(biāo)簽似乎經(jīng)過(guò)了迭代，因?yàn)椴呗皂?yè)面上給出的示例不同：

The text is bolded in this one, and the icon-to-text size ratio is smaller. There is a caret icon at the right end that is likely placed to indicate you will be taken to another page, away from this tweet. This icon is absent in the latest version. I speculate that these changes were all made towards an effort to drawing more attention to the warning icon and ultimately promoting the fact-checking link.

文本在該文本中以粗體顯示，并且圖標(biāo)與文本的大小比較小。 右端有一個(gè)插入符號(hào)圖標(biāo)，該圖標(biāo)可能表示您將被帶到另一條遠(yuǎn)離此推文的頁(yè)面。 最新版本中沒(méi)有此圖標(biāo)。 我推測(cè)所有這些更改都是為了使人們更加注意警告圖標(biāo)并最終促進(jìn)事實(shí)檢查鏈接。

I believe Twitter went out of their way to create this warning icon for the fact-checking label because I couldn’t find it used anywhere else in the app. Not with any other warning or error states. It’s possible that the designers also bent the UX guidelines for the large icon-to-text size ratio. But hey, if one needs to break the rules and create exceptions of a design system, this is THE feature, right?!

我相信Twitter會(huì)竭盡全力為事實(shí)檢查標(biāo)簽創(chuàng)建此警告圖標(biāo)，因?yàn)槲艺也坏剿趹?yīng)用程序中的其他任何地方使用。 沒(méi)有其他任何警告或錯(cuò)誤狀態(tài)。 設(shè)計(jì)人員可能還會(huì)針對(duì)大的圖標(biāo)與文本尺寸比例而彎曲UX準(zhǔn)則。 但是，嘿，如果需要打破規(guī)則并創(chuàng)建設(shè)計(jì)系統(tǒng)的例外，這就是功能，對(duì)嗎？

I am also fascinated by Twitter’s loyalty to the only blue color in their palette: Twitter Blue (#1DA1F2). Everywhere I look, this blue really stands out because it’s the only vibrant color that highlights certain pieces of information. The fact-checking label is no exception in this regard. Traditionally, this type of warning icon is associated with orange or red:

Twitter對(duì)調(diào)色板中唯一的藍(lán)色的忠誠(chéng)也使我著迷： Twitter Blue (＃1DA1F2)。 在我所看到的任何地方，這種藍(lán)色確實(shí)引人注目，因?yàn)樗俏ㄒ荒芡怀鲲@示某些信息的鮮艷顏色。 在這方面，事實(shí)檢查標(biāo)簽也不例外。 傳統(tǒng)上，這種警告圖標(biāo)與橙色或紅色關(guān)聯(lián)：

Twitter bent the rules, but not to the extent of introducing an orange or red color. They stayed consistent with the existing color palette. Orange or red in the context of a warning usually has a negative tone to it, so perhaps this is another way of saying, “we as a platform hold a neutral stance when it comes to fact-checking.”

Twitter違反了規(guī)則，但沒(méi)有引入橙色或紅色。 它們與現(xiàn)有的調(diào)色板保持一致。 警告中的橙色或紅色通常帶有負(fù)面色彩，所以也許這是另一種說(shuō)法，“我們作為平臺(tái)在事實(shí)核查中持中立立場(chǎng)?！?

Despite Twitter’s efforts to maintaining a neutral position as much as possible, this label still pissed off a lot of people. In most cases, it’s because the content this label points to contradicts the original tweet. To whoever being fact-checked on by this feature, it feels as if someone blatantly pointed out their misleading or wrongful information against their will in the public eye. Even when it’s done by a computer algorithm, it can still make the tweet author feel embarrassed and even humiliated.

盡管Twitter盡了最大努力保持中立地位，但這個(gè)標(biāo)簽仍然激怒了很多人。 在大多數(shù)情況下，這是因?yàn)榇藰?biāo)簽指向的內(nèi)容與原始推文相矛盾。 對(duì)于通過(guò)此功能進(jìn)行事實(shí)檢查的任何人，感覺(jué)好像有人在公眾眼中公然指出了他們的誤導(dǎo)或錯(cuò)誤信息。 即使通過(guò)計(jì)算機(jī)算法完成，它仍然可以使發(fā)推特作者感到尷尬甚至羞辱。

I wonder what a product designer can do address this? At the beginning of the post, I mentioned that Twitter’s official words about the purpose of this feature are “providing context”. I wonder what kinds of responses would it trigger if the text says “Get contexts about mail-in ballots”? or simply “l(fā)earn more about mail-in ballots”? I also wonder if people would react differently if the warning icon was absent, or replaced with something else?

我想知道產(chǎn)品設(shè)計(jì)師可以解決這個(gè)問(wèn)題嗎？ 在文章開(kāi)頭，我提到Twitter關(guān)于此功能目的的官方用語(yǔ)是“提供上下文”。 我想知道，如果文本顯示“獲取有關(guān)郵寄選票的上下文”，會(huì)引起什么React？ 還是只是“了解有關(guān)郵寄選票的更多信息”？ 我還想知道，如果缺少警告圖標(biāo)或?qū)⑵涮鎿Q為其他內(nèi)容，人們是否會(huì)做出不同的React？

It’s also possible that Twitter doesn’t think the issue with angering responses to the label isn’t worth addressing. Facts are facts, after all. And I have no doubt that every decision made in building this feature is a difficult and profound one.

Twitter也有可能不認(rèn)為激怒該標(biāo)簽的問(wèn)題不值得解決。 事實(shí)畢竟是事實(shí)。 我毫不懷疑，構(gòu)建此功能時(shí)做出的每一個(gè)決定都是困難而深刻的。

“With great power there must also come great responsibility.”

“強(qiáng)大的力量還必須承擔(dān)巨大的責(zé)任?！?/strong>