pb 插入报列在此处不_获取有关[在此处插入问题]的事实

pb 插入报列在此处不

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发布通知的举动是我们时代最具争议的社交媒体功能之一。 作为一名设计技术人员，我不禁想知道背后的决策过程。 这是一个看似很小的功能如何调用其各个用户群体的两极分化回应的完美示例，在这种情况下，引发了有关根本问题(言论自由)的全国性辩论。 我对这一大胆的举动感到很感兴趣，并希望记录下我对产品设计选择的想法。

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.

我通过阅读Twitter政策页面上的Twitter声明开始研究该主题。 略读告诉我，Twitter可以在推文或帐户上发布几种通知。 我注意到一个反复出现的主题是Twitter将这些通知的目的描述为提供上下文 。 这不是事实检查，不是标签，也不是以任何方式改变言论。 它提供了上下文 。 这是非常中性的词语选择。

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

在这些通知中，最有趣的，也许是最具争议的是事实检查标签：

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，警告图标引起了我的注意。 它比周围的所有图标和文本大得多。 有人可能会说它太大了。 标签似乎经过了迭代，因为策略页面上给出的示例不同：

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.

文本在该文本中以粗体显示，并且图标与文本的大小比较小。 右端有一个插入符号图标，该图标可能表示您将被带到另一条远离此推文的页面。 最新版本中没有此图标。 我推测所有这些更改都是为了使人们更加注意警告图标并最终促进事实检查链接。

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会竭尽全力为事实检查标签创建此警告图标，因为我找不到它在应用程序中的其他任何地方使用。 没有其他任何警告或错误状态。 设计人员可能还会针对大的图标与文本尺寸比例而弯曲UX准则。 但是，嘿，如果需要打破规则并创建设计系统的例外，这就是功能，对吗？

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对调色板中唯一的蓝色的忠诚也使我着迷： Twitter Blue (＃1DA1F2)。 在我所看到的任何地方，这种蓝色确实引人注目，因为它是唯一能突出显示某些信息的鲜艳颜色。 在这方面，事实检查标签也不例外。 传统上，这种警告图标与橙色或红色关联：

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违反了规则，但没有引入橙色或红色。 它们与现有的调色板保持一致。 警告中的橙色或红色通常带有负面色彩，所以也许这是另一种说法，“我们作为平台在事实核查中持中立立场。”

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.

尽管Twitter尽了最大努力保持中立地位，但这个标签仍然激怒了很多人。 在大多数情况下，这是因为此标签指向的内容与原始推文相矛盾。 对于通过此功能进行事实检查的任何人，感觉好像有人在公众眼中公然指出了他们的误导或错误信息。 即使通过计算机算法完成，它仍然可以使发推特作者感到尴尬甚至羞辱。

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 “learn more about mail-in ballots”? I also wonder if people would react differently if the warning icon was absent, or replaced with something else?

我想知道产品设计师可以解决这个问题吗？ 在文章开头，我提到Twitter关于此功能目的的官方用语是“提供上下文”。 我想知道，如果文本显示“获取有关邮寄选票的上下文”，会引起什么React？ 还是只是“了解有关邮寄选票的更多信息”？ 我还想知道，如果缺少警告图标或将其替换为其他内容，人们是否会做出不同的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也有可能不认为激怒该标签的问题不值得解决。 事实毕竟是事实。 我毫不怀疑，构建此功能时做出的每一个决定都是困难而深刻的。

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

“强大的力量还必须承担巨大的责任。”

— Spider-Man

- 蜘蛛侠

翻译自: https://uxdesign.cc/get-the-facts-about-insert-issue-here-3b482279190b

pb 插入报列在此处不