5 ms·
What makes you think their “focus” is on emojis? This is probably just one among many things they’re doing. And it’s the right thing to do, because the politica
by blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
What makes you think their “focus” is on emojis? This is probably just one among many things they’re doing. And it’s the right thing to do, because the political censorship of the pistol emoji is yet another example of how deeply biased tech companies have been in pushing their politics onto customers.
- bastawhiz 2y agoThere's zero cost to leaving the emoji as it is. The designer of the new version claims he's still working on it, so I don't know how you can say it's not a "focus". It's a waste of time and money for purely ideological reasons.
- theultdev 2y agoThe change to the water gun was for ideological reasons. This is returning to the original. Without being the project manager, you're speculating on the amount of focus this had.
- yacine_ 2y ago[flagged]
- bastawhiz 2y agoIt's not a git revert. It is active effort to create a new emoji. There's zero cost to leaving it alone, there's material cost to changing it. Last time I checked, that's a bad way for a company that nearly went out of business to prioritize.
- theultdev 2y agoWell, I guess we'll just see how it pays off for them. It's already making buzz so if it was an hour of work, I'd say the marketing effect alone was worth it.
- bastawhiz 2y agoOh you're right, the pixels of an emoji are really going to be what reverses Twitter's loss of advertisers and active user counts
- theultdev 2y agoNoone is saying that. I'm simply saying you're talking about Twitter right now because of it, and it was a small change. You know it was if you're an engineer, let's not play dumb. Not sure why everything relating to X has to be so hostile.
- rebolek 2y agoThe original change was for ideological reasons and this change is for ideological reasons too. Both are same stupid waste of time.
- theultdev 2y agoIf you think the first change was stupid, why would you support keeping it?
- mikem170 2y agoIdeological. All the people arguing both sides of this, then and now, are motivated by ideology. That includes the parent post you replied to, me, you, Elon, etc. People often argue over cultural changes. And then there's politics on top of that. And in Elon's case perhaps publicity, also.
- tedunangst 2y agoBecause it's the change that's stupid.
- gruez 2y agoFunny. You could make the same argument about the change to water gun.
- edwinjm 2y agoThe gun emoji is used to make death threats etcetera. Why do you want that on a social media platform? It's not politics, it's just decency.
- DaSHacka 2y agoRight, because changing it to a "water gun" fixes that problem
- edwinjm 2y agoYes. Try making a death threat with a water gun
- giuseppe_petri 2y agoOr... you know... /words/...
- DaSHacka 2y agoThe amount of jokes, memes, and legitimate threats I've seen with the "water gun" emoji far outnumber the number of people using it to represent an actual water gun. In fact, I can't recall a single time I've seen it used in the context of water guns. People posting "<Skull><Water_Droplets><Water_Gun>" on Twitter/TikTok/whatever are just doing the emoji equivalent of saying "I'm gonna shoot this guy, in Minecraft." Is it really better that the emoji is technically not an actual pistol? Is that gonna be the thing that stops people from making threats online?
- sunaookami 2y agoEverybody knows that death threats were invented with emoji.