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.

52 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 mark-t · · Score: 2, Interesting
      True... but shootings kill more people than force feeding another person does.

      So food emoji's can't really be perceived of as threats... at least not generally speaking, but a rifle pic could easily be seen as one, depending on the context.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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"
    7. 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...

    8. Re:frist post by wardrich86 · · Score: 2

      This doesn't make sense considering there are also knife and pistol emoji characters.

    9. 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.
    10. Re:frist post by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Last time I trusted a promise of cake, I got burned alive.

    11. Re:frist post by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      Pardon?

      --

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

    12. 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

    13. 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.

    14. 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

    15. Re:frist post by blackomegax · · Score: 3, Informative

      You know the guards were armed, right? Fat lot of good that did.

    16. Re:frist post by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      or maybe the laws that make such assumptions about 'threatening' online posting are what's broken.

    17. 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!
    18. 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.
    19. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      Probably because the range on a rifle is much farther than the range of a can of pepper spray and you can still pull the trigger while blinded. Which, you know, works just as well when your aim is to put as many holes as possible in as many people as possible.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    20. 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.

    21. Re:frist post by Cruciform · · Score: 2

      Or, you know, sensible gun legislation could be in place like in Canada, the UK, Japan, Scandanavian countries, France, etc. and mass shootings would be aberrations instead of weekly occurrences.

      But hey, don't let reality get in the way of the Die Hard fantasy.

    22. 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.

    23. Re:frist post by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

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

      Too late- a 12 year old girl posted a gun emoji on Instagram and was charged with making terroristic threats against her school.

      Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) Slashdot doesn't render emojis correctly, but here's a quote from the article:

      A grand jury in New York City recently had to decide whether ðY'® ðY" represented a true threat to police officers. A Michigan judge was asked to interpret the meaning of a face with a tongue sticking out: :P. Emoji even took a turn in the Supreme Court last year in a high-profile case over what constitutes a threat.

    24. Re:frist post by thegarbz · · Score: 2

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

      Bullshit argument indeed.

      While talking about bullshit, care to explain this emoji and why Apple also has the most realistic depiction of it?

    25. 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.
    26. Re:frist post by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      A civilian SIG MCX may not be an "assault rifle", but it is damn close.

      It fits in every portion of the definition minus the automatic...
      I'd argue that it fits "rapid-fire" pretty damn well. You can very easily squeeze off 4-5 rounds a second with that weapon, and with a 30-round mag, that's 6 seconds to wipe out 20-30 people.
      Very fun gun to shoot. Really only good for feeling like you're playing real life counterstrike against targets... or people.

      I've owned firearms since I was a wee boy... but christ, are you really so intellectually dishonest as to argue that it's reasonable for every fucking person in the country to be toting these fucking things around?
      That gun doesn't just *look* menacing- as available online, it IS fucking menacing. The only self-defensive purpose that rifle will ever serve is self defense from a Swat raid that's coming to kill your ass because you've got hostages in a bank.

    27. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 2

      That argument falls apart inside a crowded night club. Bar tender calls for final drinks, shooter opens fire with an assault rifle. The first 20 to 30 people in front of the shooter are already dead.

      That's Sig-Sauer rifle is a SEMI-automatic. One pull, one bullet. Sorry. He took THREE HOURS to shoot a little over 100 people. That's only TWO PER MINUTE (average).

      he person with a concealed gun may already be dead. People starts running to the exits. The person with a concealed gun may already be the first one out the door.

      "May" this, "May" that. But what WAS was Fish-In-A-Barrel.

      There is absolutely NO argument you can logically make that doesn't INCREASE the odds on the side of the "Fish", if they are armed. None.

    28. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 2

      An Assault Rifle has a large capacity magazine (often >25 rounds) and an automatic and/or burst fire mode. Hunting rifles are either bolt action or semi-auto and usually have smaller magazine capacities (1-5) and are often chambered for larger calibers.

      Bullshit arbitrary "classification".

    29. Re:frist post by Solandri · · Score: 2

      The thing is, most of the shit isn't from guns. CDC leading causes of death in the U.S., page 41. Skipping all the disease deaths we get:

      41,149 - suicide (21,175 of them by firearms, about 2/3 of all firearm deaths)
      38,861 - accidental poisonings and overdoses (passed traffic accidents recently)
      37,908 - (land) motor vehicle accidents (nearly 3/4 alcohol-related)
      30,208 - accidental falls (mostly among the elderly)
      16,904 - other accidents
      16,121 - homicide (11,208 by firearms)
      4,587 - Other undetermined events (281 by firearms)
      3,391 - accidental drowning
      2,768 - complications from medical and surgical care
      2,760 - accidental fire
      1,569 - water, air, space vehicle accidents
      1,000 - other land transport accidents
      516 - killings by law enforcement (usually by firearms)
      505 - accidental discharge of firearms
      15 - war

      Now, compare that list to what you see the press covering. Suicides, drug overdoses, motor vehicle deaths, falls, drownings, medical complications, are vastly underreported. Firearms (which I've put in bold), air transport accidents, killings by law enforcement, and war/terrorism deaths are vastly overreported. (IMHO fires are reported about the right amount - fires make good video).

      Roughly 2/3 of the firearm deaths are from suicide. But firearms account for roughly half of suicides. So you can make a pretty convincing argument that the people who shot themselves probably would've figured out some other way to successfully kill themselves if guns weren't available. So you shouldn't attribute these deaths on firearms.

      That leaves the 11,208 firearm homicide deaths up for debate. Which certainly is a topic worth debating. But its importance falls far behind suicide, drug overdoses, motor vehicle accidents (mostly drunk driving), falls (this one is debatable since it's mostly elderly who are killed this way), and other types of accidents. As a whole, these things are 11.7x more likely to kill you than homicide by firearm.

      In other words, firearms homicides comprise less than 8% of the shit in the shit sandwich. An objective, statistical approach to reducing the preventable non-disease death rate in this country would prioritize reducing these other causes higher than tackling firearms homicides. The overdose death rate in particular is very troubling, since it's roughly tripled in the past 15 years. This increase accounts for twice as many lives lost than would've been saved if we'd somehow managed to eliminate all firearms homicide deaths. Yet the press practically ignores this compared to firearms homicides.

    30. Re:frist post by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      This isn't a no-guns-anywhere vs. everyone-including-violent-criminals-and-the-clinically-insane-must-have-guns argument. Only a few atoms of common sense are needed to realise that there is a spectrum of possibilities, and that arguing for or against extremes is just talking to hear yourself talk.

      First, the American people need education. They need to know what guns are used for (other than mass murder), what types of guns are actually available and the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, and in my opinion I like the idea of required gun safety training. They also need to learn about mental instability, and understand the signs that someone might be a threat to them or others.

      It disgusts me that while posting this, I got an email from Joe Biden (mailing list) "calling on the government to ban AR-15-type assault weapons from civilian ownership". This is the second-in-command of the United States and he believes, incorrectly, that the AR-15 is an assault weapon.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    31. 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!
    32. Re:frist post by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      There is no distinction between SIG MCX, and any other semi-automatic rifle. They all let you " easily squeeze off 4-5 rounds a second", and most of them accept detachable magazines of essentially unlimited capacity.

      Ruger Mini-14 is not an "assault rifle" (at least not by any existing definitions), yet it could do everything MCX did.

      If you don't have a problem with people owning Mini-14s, then there's no objective reason why they shouldn't be able to own MCX.

      If you do have a problem with people owning either, then you want a full ban on semi-autos. Which is fine, but then please don't confuse the issue by using the term "assault weapon".

    33. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Now explain how those "assault rifles" are evil, but the KelTec SU-16CA [keltecweapons.com] is not.

      I agree with you completely. The SU-16CA should not be available to the general public either.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:frist post by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      So which one of your rules or lines would have stopped Omar from getting his rifle? he had a background check, was a trained security armed guard and had gone through basic police academy traingin - so he was trained. His firearms were registered. So he could have gotten them according to your rules. It wouldn't stop that lone wolf. That's the problem with just passing laws - they don't work to prevent, only to penalize.

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

      Which is another reason people like the gun. Military guns are thought to be proven and more reliable... which you want when you are defending yourself.

      Do you also want a 100-round drum magazine when defending yourself? Who are you defending yourself from, the University of Texas marching band?

      Please explain to me why any civilian has a need for a 100-round magazine or why they should be sold.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    36. 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.

    37. Re:frist post by Noble713 · · Score: 2

      When your goal is to massacre as many people as possible before the police show up, reload times are very important.

      The Orlando shooter killed ~50, wounded 50, over 3 hours. About 1 per 2 minutes, although the bulk were probably shot in the first ~20 minutes (my guess). Reload times increasing from 2-3 seconds (someone who has practiced speed reloading detachable magazines) to 5-10 seconds will not cause a significant decline in casualties during a mass shooting in a target-rich, enclosed environment.

      You are planning to murder U.S. soldiers and law enforcement. You are a menace. Please turn yourself in right now.

      I'm a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, and I live in Japan. If you don't like the ideas I have for business products, feel free to make them illegal. For now, though, gatling guns and tactical bolt-action rifles are less of a menace than high fructose corn syrup or tobacco products.

    38. 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.

    39. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The ban on assault weapons may have ended, but not the name.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    40. Re:frist post by chuckugly · · Score: 2

      The non-gun murder rate in America is higher than the overall murder rate in France. By quite a lot.

  2. Who knew newspeak would start with Emojis by Crashmarik · · Score: 2, Funny

    The destruction of words is a beautiful thing comrade Cook. This years unicode has 100 fewer symbols than 2015 it's doubleplusgood.

  3. 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.

  4. Isn't there already a gun emoji? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's already a gun emoji. Windows sidesteps the issue a bit by displaying it a cartoon raygun:

    http://emojipedia.org/microsof...

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Isn't there already a gun emoji? by Junta · · Score: 2

      Well as long as the emoji's ammo capacity is limited, it should be safe enough....

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Isn't there already a gun emoji? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right. No assault emojis.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  5. One more reason to hate Apple by nwaack · · Score: 2

    And just when I thought it was impossible for me to hate Apple any more than I already do...they exceed my expectations and manage to make me hate them even more.

  6. Hopefully... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2

    ...this will prevent further mass shootings in chat rooms.

  7. Re:Where's was the NRA to protect us by ausekilis · · Score: 2

    How am I supposed to have an emoji militia without rifles?

    I feel my e-2nd amendment rights have been trampled.

  8. What about the others? by HalAtWork · · Score: 2

    How do we get rid of the rest of the emoji?

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
  9. Pretty please by easyTree · · Score: 2

    May we have a politician-being-bribed emoticon?

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
  10. 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? :)