Thoughts on Emoji Selection Process

[Charlotte Buff via Unicode]

[James Kass wrote:]
> Naturally. How marketable is something one doesn't like?

That is the issue. You are supposed to think that the emoji submission
process is bureaucratic in nature, when in reality it all hinges on the
personal preferences of a handful of unaccountable, largely unknown people.
Everything you hear about emoji proposals, from the UTC’s own instructions
and guidelines on the Unicode homepage to lazy clickbait articles written
by shady (and sadly increasingly also not-so-shady) news outlets, is meant
to make you believe that “everyone’s voice is equal” and that all you need
to do to get something you care about implemented in emoji is to write a
document addressing a few enumerated issues and mail it to the Consortium,
but that is not how it works. The UTC will gladly ignore heaps and heaps of
evidence and statistics and whatnot if they feel indifferent towards a
proposed emoji, while simultaneously fast-tracking their own pet ideas into
the standard without any sort of documentation *cough* Ice Cube *cough*.

If you’re gonna be evil, at least have the guts to be open about it. Nobody
is forcing you to pretend that there are official procedures still in place.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20180812/96f195f7/attachment.html>