3 ms·

> replace the gun emoji with a squirt gun so just to be clear, and in your own words, they changed it from a "gun" to a "gun", right? > as a way to attack sec

> replace the gun emoji with a squirt gun so just to be clear, and in your own words, they changed it from a "gun" to a "gun", right? > as a way to attack second amendment rights Apple sells to customers across the entire globe. Most of us don't have a second amendment. Also, even if Apple was notoriously anti-second amendment and even wanted to somehow lobby the US to pass a new amendment reversing it....how does replacing a gun emoji with a squirt gun help make their case or in any way weaken the 2nd amendment? I don't think it says anything about not infringing on rights to a gun emoji? > and manipulate its customers’ thoughts and culture. When I listen to music with my 5 year old, I put on the non-explicit versions of pop songs since he's kind of a parrot right now repeating things he hear. This is a version of the art for use cases like mine. Am I "manipulating my son's thoughts and culture" by choosing when I intentionally expose him to profanity? If no, what's the difference? If yes, why is that bad?

eadmund 2y ago
> > replace the gun emoji with a squirt gun > so just to be clear, and in your own words, they changed it from a "gun" to a "gun", right? That is like saying that replacing the car emoji with a train car is changing it from a ‘car’ to a ‘car.’ A squirt gun is not at all the same thing as a pistol. Apple (with Microcoft) also pressured the Unicode Consortium not to include a rifle emoji, or an emoji for the sport of Modern Pentathlon (which involves shooting): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/20/apple-rifle-emoji-phones-unicode https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/20/apple-rif... > Am I "manipulating my son's thoughts and culture" by choosing when I intentionally expose him to profanity? Yes, and it’s good because you are your son’s father. Apple is not anyone’s father, and does not have that right over its customers.
- deanCommie 2y ago
  > That is like saying that replacing the car emoji with a train car is changing it from a ‘car’ to a ‘car.’ A squirt gun is not at all the same thing as a pistol In the context of human conversation via emojis (which is a very specialized subset of communication), can you give me an example of a scenario where the semantic meaning of a sentence is going to change significantly by the gun emoji being a squirt gun instead of a pistol? I mean this in good faith, I can't think of a reasonable scenario outside of something like: Alice: "911, what's your emergency?" Bob: "Help, I"m being threatened" Alice: "What are you being threatened with?" Bob: "" (edit: I pasted https://emojipedia.org/pistol https://emojipedia.org/pistol in here, but of course HN didn't render it) > > Am I "manipulating my son's thoughts and culture" by choosing when I intentionally expose him to profanity? > Yes, and it’s good because you are your son’s father. If you were right, I would dispute that me being a child's father gives me exclusive rights to manipulate their thoughts and culture so it's a good thing. They are an independent human being. I could use my power and influence to enstill obedience to a cult (aka, religion), or teach them racism. It might take them decades to deprogram themselves, if they ever do so at all. But I don't think you're right. Keeping profanity out of my son's brain until he grows out of the "repeat everything he hears especially if it gets a reaction" phase is no different than not giving him a gun before he can grow up to be a responsible gun owner. And conversely, just because I am failing to keep profanity out of his mouth (obviously - most kids at some point figure out potty language and how fun ti is to repeat) doesn't automatically mean he's going to grow up a profane sailor. Likewise, I don't know if my 5-year-old will grow up to be a responsible gun owner, a conscientious objector to weapons, or a mass shooter. But I do know that his fate will not be decided by whether he sees a water pistol or a bullet pistol in the gun emoji on the internet. > Apple is not anyone’s father, and does not have that right over its customers. And customers aren't citizens. Apple may have a pretty large market share, but it is in no ways a monopoly. It is trivial to avoid Apple products in your life. If the concern is that they used their power to influence the rest of the tech industry and the Unicode consortium, I mean the list of things like that is infinite. All modern web standards are shaped by tech companies, large and small. The issue isn't that someone CAN influence a consortium, the issue is that you disagree with the decision. And I can understand if this was a threat to free expression or culture, but the list of emojis is already curated and influenced by the artists. I'm still curious of an answer to this BTW: > how does replacing a gun emoji with a squirt gun help make their case or in any way weaken the 2nd amendment? I don't think it says anything about not infringing on rights to a gun emoji?

eadmund 2y ago

> > replace the gun emoji with a squirt gun > so just to be clear, and in your own words, they changed it from a "gun" to a "gun", right? That is like saying that replacing the car emoji with a train car is changing it from a ‘car’ to a ‘car.’ A squirt gun is not at all the same thing as a pistol. Apple (with Microcoft) also pressured the Unicode Consortium not to include a rifle emoji, or an emoji for the sport of Modern Pentathlon (which involves shooting): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/20/apple-rifle-emoji-phones-unicode https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/20/apple-rif... > Am I "manipulating my son's thoughts and culture" by choosing when I intentionally expose him to profanity? Yes, and it’s good because you are your son’s father. Apple is not anyone’s father, and does not have that right over its customers.

deanCommie 2y ago
> That is like saying that replacing the car emoji with a train car is changing it from a ‘car’ to a ‘car.’ A squirt gun is not at all the same thing as a pistol In the context of human conversation via emojis (which is a very specialized subset of communication), can you give me an example of a scenario where the semantic meaning of a sentence is going to change significantly by the gun emoji being a squirt gun instead of a pistol? I mean this in good faith, I can't think of a reasonable scenario outside of something like: Alice: "911, what's your emergency?" Bob: "Help, I"m being threatened" Alice: "What are you being threatened with?" Bob: "" (edit: I pasted https://emojipedia.org/pistol https://emojipedia.org/pistol in here, but of course HN didn't render it) > > Am I "manipulating my son's thoughts and culture" by choosing when I intentionally expose him to profanity? > Yes, and it’s good because you are your son’s father. If you were right, I would dispute that me being a child's father gives me exclusive rights to manipulate their thoughts and culture so it's a good thing. They are an independent human being. I could use my power and influence to enstill obedience to a cult (aka, religion), or teach them racism. It might take them decades to deprogram themselves, if they ever do so at all. But I don't think you're right. Keeping profanity out of my son's brain until he grows out of the "repeat everything he hears especially if it gets a reaction" phase is no different than not giving him a gun before he can grow up to be a responsible gun owner. And conversely, just because I am failing to keep profanity out of his mouth (obviously - most kids at some point figure out potty language and how fun ti is to repeat) doesn't automatically mean he's going to grow up a profane sailor. Likewise, I don't know if my 5-year-old will grow up to be a responsible gun owner, a conscientious objector to weapons, or a mass shooter. But I do know that his fate will not be decided by whether he sees a water pistol or a bullet pistol in the gun emoji on the internet. > Apple is not anyone’s father, and does not have that right over its customers. And customers aren't citizens. Apple may have a pretty large market share, but it is in no ways a monopoly. It is trivial to avoid Apple products in your life. If the concern is that they used their power to influence the rest of the tech industry and the Unicode consortium, I mean the list of things like that is infinite. All modern web standards are shaped by tech companies, large and small. The issue isn't that someone CAN influence a consortium, the issue is that you disagree with the decision. And I can understand if this was a threat to free expression or culture, but the list of emojis is already curated and influenced by the artists. I'm still curious of an answer to this BTW: > how does replacing a gun emoji with a squirt gun help make their case or in any way weaken the 2nd amendment? I don't think it says anything about not infringing on rights to a gun emoji?