>You can currently purchase a semi-automatic rifle in a major U.S. city in just seven minutes, but don’t expect to text someone a rifle emoji anytime soon.
>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 (earlier this year, the company announced it delivers as many as 200,000 messages per second across iMessage).
https://archive.is/39QeW
A billion dollar multi-national company is holding back people's ability to express a certain idea. Surely the liberals will start protesting the decision any second now.
>>55136133
>implying emoji is relevant to free speech
I really don't fucking care
Its blatant censorship but censorship of the best kind: the kind only idiots are affected by
call me when IMEs no longer support the input of the word "rifle" and then I'll fume in your thread
Emojis should have remained on phones for Japanese high school girls. Putting them in unicode was a mistake.
Criminals will just send each other pictures of knives instead. It's not the emojis we should worry about, but the people using the emojis.
>implying this means shit
What's next, are they gonna kill any hope of a kush emoji?
Emojis are a stupid idea to being with.
You can't just assume a single organization is capable of standardizing every common form of visual expression known to mankind.
Had an iphone but I guess I am a #droidbot now
>>55136227
Kush is progressive, kush is good for you, goy!
Unicode is not a public national/international company, it's a private one.
This is no censorship.
>>55136133
That's fine, I can send the message 63 grains at a time...
>>55136155
This. Having a nigger version of an emoji is important to free speech, unlike emojis that represent new ideas that aren't already present in the set.
>>55136133
>Surely the liberals will start protesting the decision any second now
I would if I gave even a millifuck about emojis.
>>55138127
How's it like having the intelligence of someone else's left toe? Please tell us of your experience!
>>55136133
>Emoji
why should I, or anyone, care?
>>55138127
>expecting tech libertarians of /g/ to understand how censorship actually works
good one. It's easier to scream "muh censorship" than to learn anything about how the world actually works
>using emoji's
>>55139963
>first they came for the emojis
>etc.
>caring about this literal non-issue
Slowly but surely our God-given freedoms are being chipped away one small piece at a time. And you people are supporting it. "Um, this censorship doesn't affect me; I never use emoticons anyways.", fucking sad.
