5 ms·

That's a shame. Its one thing to have absolute, iron fisted control over your own platform - its another to intentionally seek to limit people's self expressio

by jshevek 10y ago

That's a shame. Its one thing to have absolute, iron fisted control over your own platform - its another to intentionally seek to limit people's self expression on other platforms by influencing the standard in this way.

eridius 10y ago
Are you saying that a company with voting rights shouldn't be allowed to have influence on what goes into Unicode? That doesn't make any sense. Also, if you read the article, Apple wasn't the only party in favor of nixing the emoji.
- jshevek 10y ago
  > Are you saying that a company with voting rights shouldn't be allowed to have influence on what goes into Unicode? Obviously not.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  You can think a company should have a say and still think it's windy to use that say in a particular way.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > Are you saying that a company with voting rights shouldn't be allowed to have influence on what goes into Unicode? One might have a right to do something and yet be wrong to do it. Apple had every right to do what they did, but they were completely, totally and undeniably in the wrong to do it. Everyone associated with their action should be ashamed. Honestly, they should all resign: their behaviour demonstrates that they have no business being associated with this sort of work.
  - eridius 10y ago
    Your comment is ridiculously extreme. They were not "undeniably" in the wrong. You think they were wrong, but that is an highly subjective opinion. In fact, I don't even agree that they were wrong to do this at all. I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue against the inclusion of more gun imagery in Unicode. Also, if you think Apple was wrong, you must also think that Microsoft was (they voiced support), and everyone else at the meeting who agreed with the move. As the article says, > Davis confirmed to BBC News on Monday that "there was consensus to remove" the emojis, but that he couldn't comment on the details. So it's clearly not just Apple that thought this was the appropriate move.
    - oh_sigh 10y ago
      Thank goodness for apple and other members which rejected the starter pistol/rifle proposal. Imagine how many mass shootings we've prevented by people not being able to communicate their plans using the rifle emoji.
    - nv-vn 10y ago
      Just like how North Korea isn't "undeniably" wrong in censoring speech to such an extreme. This is a very 1984-esque "solution" to a problem -- don't want to acknowledge positive use of guns? Good news, we can just erase them from our language! The way we treat emoji has some very serious similarities to Newspeak.
      - eridius 10y ago
        That's absurd. Nobody's censoring anything here. Apple not wanting to add a new gun emoji is in no way preventing you from talking about guns. Emoji isn't a replacement for English and nobody is forcing you to "speak" in all emoji.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by jshevek 10y ago

eridius 10y ago

Are you saying that a company with voting rights shouldn't be allowed to have influence on what goes into Unicode? That doesn't make any sense. Also, if you read the article, Apple wasn't the only party in favor of nixing the emoji.

jshevek 10y ago
> Are you saying that a company with voting rights shouldn't be allowed to have influence on what goes into Unicode? Obviously not.
dragonwriter 10y ago
You can think a company should have a say and still think it's windy to use that say in a particular way.
zeveb 10y ago
> Are you saying that a company with voting rights shouldn't be allowed to have influence on what goes into Unicode? One might have a right to do something and yet be wrong to do it. Apple had every right to do what they did, but they were completely, totally and undeniably in the wrong to do it. Everyone associated with their action should be ashamed. Honestly, they should all resign: their behaviour demonstrates that they have no business being associated with this sort of work.
- eridius 10y ago
  Your comment is ridiculously extreme. They were not "undeniably" in the wrong. You think they were wrong, but that is an highly subjective opinion. In fact, I don't even agree that they were wrong to do this at all. I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue against the inclusion of more gun imagery in Unicode. Also, if you think Apple was wrong, you must also think that Microsoft was (they voiced support), and everyone else at the meeting who agreed with the move. As the article says, > Davis confirmed to BBC News on Monday that "there was consensus to remove" the emojis, but that he couldn't comment on the details. So it's clearly not just Apple that thought this was the appropriate move.
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    Thank goodness for apple and other members which rejected the starter pistol/rifle proposal. Imagine how many mass shootings we've prevented by people not being able to communicate their plans using the rifle emoji.
  - nv-vn 10y ago
    Just like how North Korea isn't "undeniably" wrong in censoring speech to such an extreme. This is a very 1984-esque "solution" to a problem -- don't want to acknowledge positive use of guns? Good news, we can just erase them from our language! The way we treat emoji has some very serious similarities to Newspeak.
    - eridius 10y ago
      That's absurd. Nobody's censoring anything here. Apple not wanting to add a new gun emoji is in no way preventing you from talking about guns. Emoji isn't a replacement for English and nobody is forcing you to "speak" in all emoji.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]