Twitter vs. X: Product Lessons For Startup Founders | The Breakdown

以下是翻译后的中文版本: 这一期 YC 新系列节目深入探讨了 Twitter，现在称为 X，探讨了它在新所有权下的演变。讨论的重点是从基于时间顺序、基于兴趣的信息流转变为 TikTok 风格的算法信息流，后者优先考虑参与度，有时以牺牲用户满意度为代价。两位经验丰富的产品构建者剖析了这种转变的原因和后果，探讨了其对用户体验和平台长期生存能力的潜在影响。 他们讨论了内容方面的明显变化，更加强调带有政治色彩和耸人听闻的视频。他们分享了 Twitter 的算法现在呈现给他们的内容，虽然引人入胜，但让他们感觉信息量不足，不够满足。这就引出了本集的核心问题：如何确定用户是否真正从产品中获得价值？虽然参与度的增加似乎是一个成功的指标，但如果内容质量低劣或与用户期望不符，它可能会具有误导性。他们强调了只优化单一指标（例如停留时间）的危险，而忽略了质量和用户满意度等其他因素。 接下来，演讲者分析了其他社交网络，如 Facebook 和 Instagram，是如何经历类似转变的。Facebook 最初通过其新闻源取得了巨大成功，但随着平台的增长，它被来自不希望建立联系的人的内容所稀释。Instagram 遵循了类似的轨迹，最终优先考虑了点击诱饵而不是有意义的互动。相比之下，TikTok 直接采用算法驱动的方法，提供源源不断的可能令人上瘾的内容。 他们谈到了用户对 X 的反馈问题，指出该产品提供了工具让用户可以管理自己的信息流并屏蔽不需要的内容。然而，该产品似乎并没有有效地指示这些工具的使用方法。他们还讨论了 Twitter 列表的问题，该列表允许用户策划特定主题的高质量信息流。他们承认发现这些列表的难度以及它们在突发新闻事件中提供的潜在价值。他们认为 Twitter 擅长在危机期间提供第一手信息，使其成为有价值的实时新闻来源。 谈话转向了蓝色复选标记，在过去，它是信誉的象征，表明用户是真实的。然而，现在任何人都可以付费获得蓝色复选标记，这导致了混乱。他们讨论了扩展的用户体验问题，注意到了许多不直观的图标和 Grok 集成。 接下来，这集节目深入探讨了从 Twitter 到 X 的颇具争议的名称变更。他们对这个决定表示困惑，强调了 Twitter 已建立的品牌价值和无处不在的“tweet”动词的价值。发言者强调了选择一个易于说、拼写，并且最好与产品功能相关的产品名称的重要性。他们认为，最好的公司会随着时间的推移赋予其名称意义，而不是依赖于固有的意义。 关于对 Twitter 收入的影响，他们注意到，由于广告商对内容邻接性的担忧，广告收入有所下降。尽管订阅收入可能增长，但整体财务状况似乎并不确定。这进一步加强了反对盲目优化参与度的论点，因为它最终会损害产品的声誉和收入来源。 演讲者最后为产品创始人提供了建议，强调了定义产品的目的和目标受众的重要性。他们告诫不要将指标置于用户体验之上，并鼓励产品领导者保持对产品的清晰愿景，即使这意味着牺牲短期增长。他们认为，创始人 CEO 在执行这一愿景方面具有独特的优势，因为他们拥有道德权威来引导公司朝着长期、以用户为中心的方法发展。他们强调了考虑用户可能体验到的“良好状态”的重要性，并警告那些看起来很好（参与度增加）但最终让用户感到不满意的状态。

This episode of YC's new series dives into Twitter, now known as X, examining its evolution under new ownership. The discussion focuses on the shift from a chronological, interest-based feed to a TikTok-style algorithmic feed, where engagement is prioritized, sometimes at the expense of user satisfaction. The speakers, both experienced product builders, dissect the causes and consequences of this shift, exploring its potential impact on the user experience and long-term viability of the platform. They discuss the noticeable change in content, with a heavier emphasis on politically charged and sensational videos. They share how Twitter's algorithm now presents them with content that, while engaging, leaves them feeling less informed and fulfilled. This leads to the core question of the episode: How can you determine if users are truly deriving value from a product? While increased engagement might seem like a success metric, it can be misleading if the content is low-quality or misaligned with user expectations. They highlight the danger of optimizing for a single metric, such as dwell time, to the exclusion of other factors like quality and user satisfaction. The speakers then analyze how other social networks, such as Facebook and Instagram, have undergone similar transformations. Facebook initially saw great success with its newsfeed, but as the platform grew, it became diluted with content from unwanted connections. Instagram followed a similar trajectory, eventually prioritizing clickbait over meaningful interactions. TikTok, by contrast, jumped directly to an algorithm-driven approach, serving up a constant stream of potentially addictive content. They address the issue of user feedback on X, noting that the product provides tools for users to curate their feeds and block unwanted content. The product however does not seem to indicate the tools effectively. They also discuss the issue of Twitter lists, which allow users to curate high-quality feeds on specific topics. They acknowledge the difficulty of discovering these lists and the potential value they provide during breaking news events. They argue that Twitter excels at delivering first-hand information during crises, making it a valuable source of real-time news. The conversation moves to the blue checkmark and how in the past, it was a symbol of credibility, indicating the user was legit. Now, however, anyone can pay for a blue checkmark, which has led to confusion. They address the issue of the expanded user experience, noting the number of non-intuitive icons and the Grok integration. The episode then delves into the controversial name change from Twitter to X. They express bewilderment at the decision, highlighting the value of Twitter's established brand and the ubiquitous "tweet" verb. The speakers emphasize the importance of choosing a product name that is easy to say, spell, and ideally related to the product's function. They suggest that the best companies imbue their names with meaning over time, rather than relying on inherent significance. Regarding the impact on Twitter's revenue, they note a decline in ad revenue due to advertisers' concerns about content adjacency. Despite potential growth in subscription revenue, the overall financial picture appears uncertain. This reinforces the argument against blindly optimizing for engagement, as it can ultimately damage the product's reputation and revenue streams. The speakers close by offering advice to product founders, emphasizing the importance of defining the product's purpose and target audience. They caution against prioritizing metrics over user experience and encourage product leaders to maintain a clear vision for the product, even if it means sacrificing short-term growth. They argue that founder CEOs have a unique advantage in enforcing this vision, as they possess the moral authority to guide the company toward a long-term, user-centric approach. They highlight the importance of considering "good states" a user might experience, and warn against states that seem good (increased engagement) but ultimately leave the user feeling dissatisfied.