Comment in a leading German newspaper regarding the way UTC and Apple handle Emoji as an attack on Free Speech

gfb hjjhjh c933103 at
Sun Sep 4 05:48:04 CDT 2016

After you admitted you have mistook the language level, your reply is still
full of ad hominem, and being very young =\= have no children in age of
using iphone, and even if he have no children in age of using iphone that
does not mean he is not concerned about the problem of children possibly
exposed to hate comments. In my opinion concern about what children might
expose to shall be deal with parental control not something that affect
every users. In some war-torn countries, guns are still unfortunately part
of daily life for some people, and they are also unicode users. They use
emoji too. Please at least try to pretend to be less US-centric.

Calling inter-operatability problem a very rare case is just pretending the
problem does not exist, think about how the yellow heart look like in
Android 4.4.

Those words used in the article are in my opinion fairly mild and indirect,
at least they are not writing like some other reports I have read earlier
that claim it is yet another example of how America dictate online world
and utilize their technological advantage to force rest of the world
sacrifice for them.

I don't see any particular big problem in the googl translated text of the
report on the original author's understansing on unicode's proposal and
accepting procedure and I am afraid you might have misunderstood something
between the lines. Also, author's point is not about priblems in
proposal/acceptance procedure, instead he's talking about how such a use of
existing procedure could lead to undesirable effect.

You cannot deny emoji are used as part of speech, even when they are mostly
informal. For instance, in an election take place in ny city today, some
candidates are forced to use emoji to write their political campaigns to
avoid censorship. It is likely that if people can't find their desired
emoji in emoji list, they will turm to use other less fitting emoji and
thus avoided the expression they originally intended to use.

Determining what to/not to appear in the emoji list for non-technical
reason surely open up a new path to governmental bodies around the world to
control people's expression, for instance if you set your locale as China,
then the flag for Taiwan would disappear from your keyboard if you're using
native keyboard on phones from some brand. Or try to think about a
hypothetical situation that certain Islamic country require all phones sold
in it must have hijab for all the women emoji.

If you think such a rational article is wrotten with hate then might be you
habe already assumed any negative opinions are equal to hate.


2016年9月4日 09:13 於 "Marcel Schneider" <charupdate at> 寫道:

> On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 14:21:22 -0700, Asmus Freytag (c) wrote:
> > I don't think that there should be a place on this list for accusing
> > people of dishonesty and / or spreading "neo-nazi junk"; and I don't
> > know what the marriage status of the editors has to do with anything.
> >
> > The central concern of the FAZ article appears to be the role that
> > private entities play as gate-keepers of modern communication. That's
> > actually a valid concern (see issues like net-neutrality, algorithm
> > based search returns and news-feeds and the like). The fact that fine
> > distinctions of a technical nature may have been handled with less
> > precision than insiders would prefer, is perhaps sloppy, but pretty
> > typical for journalism in general.
> >
> > None of that warrants the kind of loaded language used here.
> >
> > A./
> >
> > PS: must admit, I haven't followed the FAZ in a while, so I have no
> > personal knowledge of any changes that may have happened in recent
> > years, but in earlier times the Feuilleton (the section that this
> > article appeared in) used to be fairly liberal in outlook, certainly not
> > given to the extremist views that they are accused of here. And I can
> > detect no evidence that the charges below have any merit.
> I admit that I mistook my language level. In front of the long discussion
> on
> the Unicode List triggered by that FAZ paper, Iʼve ended up bursting out.
> The main concern as Doug Ewellʼs last question underscores it, is whether
> the
> attack against the Unicode Consortium is justified in any way, or is mere
> calumny.
> Further research brings up that the author of the paper is a very young
> freelance
> journalist.[1] That confirms my suspicion that having no children in age
> of using
> an iPhone, he doesnʼt feel concerned with Appleʼs choice. However he is
> right in
> that, at the very end of his article he points out the risk of the
> waterpistol emoji
> being intended as such and received on Android:
> “Die in Codes formulierte Entwaffnungspolitik kehrt sich in ihr Gegenteil,
> wenn ein iPhone-Nutzer seine Freunde zu einer Wasserschlacht einlädt und
> ihnen per SMS ein Wasserpistolen-Emoji schickt: Dann erscheint auf dem
> Samsung-Gerät keine Wasserpistole, sondern ein Revolver. Und das könnten
> die Empfänger womöglich missverstehen.”
> [revised Google translation: “The disarmament policy that is formulated in
> codes
> is reversed into its opposite when an iPhone user invites his friends to a
> water
> fight and sends them a water pistol emoji by SMS: Then the Samsung device
> does not
> display a water pistol, but a revolver. Something that the receivers could
> possibly
> misunderstand.”]
> Arguing by this very rare case is consistent with the facts-twisting used
> in other
> parts of the article. This casts a crude twilight on the authorʼs
> approach. Harsh
> wording such as “doppelzüngig” (deceitful, speaking of Apple and
> Microsoft);
> “schleift das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung” (grinds the right on Free
> Speech,
> as of Apple), pointed as a “Skandal”; “zeugt von einer verqueren Sicht der
> Dinge”
> (brings evidence of an awry/askew/screwy point of view) contrasts with an
> obvious
> lack of knowledge when talking of Unicode as both proposing and accepting
> emoji…
> As is outlined by a readerʼs comment, while emoji are formally in the
> first place,
> the demonstration is biased with a mix-up involving speech, then applied
> to emoji
> to make the reader believe that the Orwell-reminiscence is really
> well-placed.
> Unicode and big tech companies are always patient targets for attacks
> of that kind. As pointed by another commenting reader: A tempest in a
> teapot.
> I remember the FAZ feuilleton over a decade ago too, appearing to me
> always as
> high-quality journalism. A quick look at the last article from the same
> author[2]
> makes me believe that truth and accuracy still conform to the standard.
> In return, Iʼm left back with the troublesome question: Why do they hate
> Unicode,
> Apple and Microsoft?
> Marcel
> [1]
> [2]
> haftet-fuer-luegen-die-algorithmen-verbreiten-14416032.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Unicode mailing list