Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Thanks To Apple's Influence, You're Not Getting A Rifle Emoji (buzzfeed.com)

Posted by msmash on from the for-culture dept.

Charlie Warzel, reporting for BuzzFeed News: Unicode, the technical organization in charge of selecting and overseeing emojis, debated and ultimately decided to remove a rifle from its list of new emoji candidates in 2016, according to multiple persons who attended its quarterly meeting last May. The decision was led and championed by one of tech's biggest companies: Apple. Apple is one of Unicode's largest member companies and not only has voting rights, but also holds considerable influence. Millions of people use emojis on Apple's software platforms. According to sources in the room, Apple started the discussion to remove the rifle emoji, which had already passed into the encoding process for the Unicode 9.0 release this June. Apple told the consortium it would not support a rifle on its platforms and asked for it not to be made into an emoji. "I heard Apple speak up about it and also Microsoft," one member present at the discussions told BuzzFeed News.

25 of 569 comments (clear)

  1. frist post by the_povinator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat, and whether the company, becoming aware of such a threat, has a duty to do something about it.

    --
    The .sig is dead, and I believe I had a hand in killing it.
    1. Re:frist post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat, and whether the company, becoming aware of such a threat, has a duty to do something about it.

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      Gotta love the logic surrounding this bullshit argument.

    2. Re:frist post by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In simpler terms: Apple saved us a bunch of bullshit like a student being expelled over a rifle emoji.

      Here's a fun fact about emoji: Emoji are artistically re-rendered usually per the brand of the device, resulting in different interpretations of how they're used vs. how they're intended. This has already landed people in hot water. There's an emoji of a someone laughing so hard they're in tears. There are quite a few people out there that see it as someone hysterically crying. On their device it may actually appear that way because of how the artist designed it. Imagine that little misinterpretation happening during a comment made about the recent shooting in Orlando!

      All I'm going to say is: Thank you, Apple.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:frist post by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat, and whether the company, becoming aware of such a threat, has a duty to do something about it.

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      Gotta love the logic surrounding this bullshit argument.

      Cakes aren't designed with the express purpose of killing things.

      Bullshit argument indeed.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:frist post by KraxxxZ01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cake have many uses, sustaining life being one of them, most violent one is actually fun. Rifle has only one. Your argument is invalid.

    5. Re:frist post by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but a rifle pic could easily be seen as one, depending on the context

      So, if I were to use a rifle emoji on /., you'd feel threatened? Really?

      Or perhaps you'd only feel threatened if the guy in the next cubicle used one in an email? Seriously, I hope you know the guy in the next cubby well enough to know whether he'd want to shoot you. And if he did (want to shoot you), I'd hope he'd use a real gun rather than an emoji....

      C'mon, people, when you start finding a few characters in an email threatening, there's a problem. And the problem isn't the arrangement of the characters....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:frist post by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat, and whether the company, becoming aware of such a threat, has a duty to do something about it.

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      Gotta love the logic surrounding this bullshit argument.

      Boobs have never killed anybody, all that boobs have ever done is feed babies and put smiles on the lips of men all over the planet, the bigger and bouncier the boobs the bigger the smile. I say all of us slashdotters should unite and lobby Unicode for a set of boobs emojis in all cup-sizes...

    7. Re:frist post by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In most countries, you'd be right to heap scorn on anyone feeling threatened by an emoji or an email.

      But this is the US, where guns are easy and cheap to get, and people get routinely shot over the dumbest shit. Dude might be a bit of scaredy cat, but he's certainly not insane.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    8. Re:frist post by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I can definitely see how a rifle emoji would be threatening, but a dagger, crossed swords, skull and crossbones, a bomb , or even a pistol clearly aren't.

      There's already a pistol emoji. There's no reason not to add a rifle emoji for completeness sake.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    9. Re:frist post by unrtst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cakes aren't designed with the express purpose of killing things.

      Neither are emoji's.
      How many apps/games/etc are there where guns, violence, etc are possible, if not the goal?

      "The usual road to (digital) slavery is that first they take away your gun (emoji's), then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it." -- James A. Donald

    10. Re:frist post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      this is the US, where guns are easy and cheap to get, and people get routinely shot over the dumbest shit

      Your argument is invalid. There is no linkage between email and guns in the US. And while it may be true that people get "routinely shot" (I don't know what you mean by that), this is not because guns are "cheap and easy to get". The US has more guns now than ever before, yet violent crime has been decreasing over the past decades. Look, here's some graphs.

      If the simple availability of legal guns really caused violence, then now that we have more guns than ever before, we ought to have more violence than ever before. Yet we don't.

      In fact, one could make an argument that the increase in the number of guns reduced the violence in the US. I don't make that argument because correlation does not prove causation. However, you are making a causation claim and there isn't even a correlation to back you up.

      I invite you to read the book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy which explores why different countries have different amounts of violence. Spoiler: it's more cultural factors than anything else.

    11. Re:frist post by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In most countries, you'd be right to heap scorn on anyone feeling threatened by an emoji or an email.

      But this is the US, where guns are easy and cheap to get, and people get routinely shot over the dumbest shit. Dude might be a bit of scaredy cat, but he's certainly not insane.

      Gun violence is at an all time low
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
      http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
      http://www.cnsnews.com/comment...

      I know, pesky facts. Who cares about'em

    12. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know what stops mass shootings? Ironically, the same thing that allows them to happen in the first place: guns.

      If just one patron of that night club last week had a gun, they could have put one between the shooter's eyes when he first started shooting and fewer people would have died. If more people carried, more people would think twice about using guns to commit crimes.

      Sure, that wouldn't be the case if guns didn't exist but, oh, look at that. They do.

      More restrictions really don't help. Look at France; strict gun laws just ensure that, when gun crimes occur (and they will), they're more devastating than they would be if an armed citizen had been there to stop them.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    13. Re:frist post by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gun violence is at an all time low

      Yeah...for the US. Let me put it this way: You might have cut off the crusts, but you're still eating a shit sandwich.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    14. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I haven't read the detailed reports but it would make sense that the guards were the first targets. If random unidentified citizens had been armed, any one of them could have stepped in and put a stop to the event.

      "Let's see... hmm... there are two guards, I know they're armed, and nobody else is likely to be. Take out the two guards and I'm home free."
      -vs-
      "There are only two guards, but it's common for people to be armed. I probably won't get very far even if I take out the guards first."

      See how those situations might play out differently? In the latter, the shooting might never occur to begin with; and if it does, the shooter will find himself on the wrong side of a room full of barrels before he can select his second victim.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    15. Re:frist post by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gun violence is at an all time low.

      Compared to the rest of the developed world, gun violence in the USA is still at appalling levels.

    16. Re:frist post by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know what stops mass shootings?

      Yes I do: Creating a culture where it is very difficult to get a gun. You know why there aren't mass shootings in Japan?

      Nutballs who want to kill a room full of people can't lay their hands on a gun.

    17. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gun violence is at an all time low

      But still more than other developed countries by a lot. I mean a WHOLE lot.

      And mass shootings in the US are at an all-time high. No matter how you cut it, we are one violent and fucked up culture that loves guns.

      https://docs.google.com/spread...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:frist post by ooloorie · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah...for the US.

      No, it's down in many countries. Of course, by the kind of pretzel logic people like you employ, when gun violence falls in Australia, it's due to gun control, while when it falls in the US, it's because of lack of gun control. Or something.

      Let me put it this way: You might have cut off the crusts, but you're still eating a shit sandwich.

      The "shit sandwich" metaphor refers to the kind of lousy service governments that progressive governments give people, the same governments that tend to try to impose gun control. So, sorry, that metaphor doesn't work here.

    19. Re:frist post by bondsbw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But none of those things make a gun an "assault weapon", which is defined as "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use". It is not automatic, which is defined as a single-pull-multiple-fire gun. It is semi-automatic, you must pull the trigger per shot. So are most pistols, including those pink ones designed to look so much less dangerous (but aren't).

      Suggested reading: https://medium.com/@jonst0kes/why-i-need-an-ar-15-832e05ae801c#.fql7xrb9x

      If the AR-15 were a weapon that’s suitable only for indiscriminate, spray-n-pray mass slaughter, then it wouldn’t be so popular with police. There is no conceivable circumstance in which a police officer—not even a SWAT team member—would need to mow down hordes of people.

      The AR-15 is less a model of rifle than it is an open-source, modular weapons platform that can be customized for a whole range of applications, from small pest control to taking out 500-pound feral hogs to urban combat. Everything about an individual AR-15 can be changed with aftermarket parts—the caliber of ammunition, recoil, range, weight, length, hold and grip, and on and on.

      People buy these because it's cheaper to buy one gun and change parts out for a few different needs, than to buy a few guns.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    20. Re:frist post by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now explain how those "assault rifles" are evil, but the KelTec SU-16CA is not. The SU-16CA is 100% compliant with those "assault weapons" lists, but it:

      - Uses the same magazines (STANAG)

      - Uses the same caliber and rounds

      - Same reload operation/time

      - Same operation (semi-automatic)

      - Same barrel length (16")

      - Same terminal velocity and accuracy

      The AR-15 is banned by most "assault weapons" lists, but the SU-16CA passes with flying colors. The reality is that the list is simply made up from what some people consider "scary". It's cosmetic fluff worse than the TSA kabuki theater of security.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    21. Re:frist post by Falconhell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Combine the populations of
      France
      UK
      Australia
      Germany
      Japan
      Switzerland
      Sweden
      Denmark

      and you get roughly the same population as that of the USA.

      All those countries combined average a yearly death by firearm total of 112.

      The USA manages an average of 32,000.

      You can spin statistics any way you want but it will take more than Donald Trump to turn those figures around and make them acceptable.

    22. Re: frist post by drfred79 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just some friendly advice. Every male in Switzerland has to perform military service and so gun ownership is big. Yet you just said their homicide rate by firearms was low. You're making the argument it's culture not quantity of firearms.

  2. When codepoints are outlawed... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...only outlaws will have codepoints.

    Okay, and anybody who understands how to look things up in a character set.

  3. details by hsthompson69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1) it's a bipod, not a tripod
    2) a scope is a perfectly reasonable attachment for any 5.56/.223 rifle - effective range can go out to 100 to 200m, and a good scope is helpful at those ranges
    3) whether or not it uses a drum magazine, or a simple double stack magazine, the weapon still functions like any other semi-automatic rifle -> one trigger pull, one shot.

    Now, you can choose to define an "assault weapon" as something black and scary looking, but nothing you've pointed out is any different than the much kinder, gentler looking mini 14 (http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/images/line-top.jpg). During the san bernardino terrorist attack, you can see LEOs using it: http://media.gettyimages.com/p... - it's functionally identical to the AR15 style weapons the terrorists were using, chambering the same round, firing at the same rate.

    A common sense definition of an "assault weapon" is a fully automatic (not semi-automatic) belt fed machine gun...something like the m60 (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/guns/images/5/58/M60.PNG/revision/latest?cb=20070330224515)

    But you really weren't looking for the truth, now were you? :)