This Hacker News discussion revolves around the expansion of Unicode, specifically focusing on new emoji additions, the rationale behind their inclusion, and the broader implications for character encoding and digital communication.
North-Centric Bias in Emoji Time/Season References
A prominent theme is the criticism that Unicode emoji, particularly those related to time and seasons, exhibit a bias towards Northern Hemisphere perspectives.
- iamtedd points out, "Unicode is all about encoding text in a universal standard that is more or less agnostic to each language (is universally painful to work with), and yet they talk about the rollout in terms that only make sense to the northern hemisphere (seasons)." He further clarifies that even though the initial source was a personal blog, its connection to the emoji subcommittee chair gives it an official air. He questions, "What about emoji or Unicode is tied to the weather? Why not use more universal time markers? If dates or months are truly too precise for this timeline, quarters are good enough. They could also just have a month range or "approx"." He adds that for those near the equator, "I don't have an innate sense of seasons at all, so have to remember what people are referring to when they use these terms."
- mikepurvis offers a workaround, stating, "I like how SkillUp handles it in the This Week In Videogames show when talking about release days; basically says 'northern summer' which acknowledges that the publisher said summer while clarifying whose summer it actually is (eg, not his, since he's Australia-based)."
- elitistphoenix echoes this sentiment, "Companies need to learn there are two hemispheres."
The Ever-Growing Number and Usefulness of Emojis
The discussion touches upon the sheer volume of emojis being added and whether they are genuinely useful or just "pointless madness."
- madamelic expresses a "Boomer opinion" on the matter, stating, "there are just too many. At some point we need to cut a lot of emojis or come up with a better way to insert them into conversations. We are at nearly 4,000 emojis. Scrolling through a list is bad UX, remembering or trying to think of keywords to pull one up is bad UX. I think we could cut it down to 2,000 easily, no one would notice." She proposes a deletion system based on usage thresholds.
- dingnuts counters by comparing this to deleting Kanji and the surveillance required.
- miloignis offers a different perspective: "This feels more like a proposal for whatever emoji-picker you're using than for Unicode – I don't use most of the scripts defined by Unicode, and I don't use most of the emoji either. No one is forcing me to use every Unicode codepoint. Them being defined is only a benefit to me if I do happen to need to use them..."
- bogdart states directly, "They need to stop. The list is becoming ridiculously long."
- sandworm101 agrees: "Please stop. We have too many already. I cannot keep up with all the double and tripple meanings. I do not dare use an emofji for fear of unintended meaning. Just leave it alone for a few years."
- WalterBright laments, "Just pointless madness."
- OutOfHere worries, "The unallocated space should be reserved for future civilizations, AI intercommunication languages that are yet to come, extraterrestrial languages that will emerge, etc. Filling up the space with garbage dooms it."
- layer8 provides a more optimistic counterpoint, "At the rate at which new emojis are being added, the currently unallocated space would be exhausted in around 4000 years. However, there's also the option to extend Unicode beyond U+10FFFF, if future civilizations are determined enough."
The Process and Controversy of Emoji Inclusion
The criteria and process for adding new emojis are questioned, with some users expressing frustration over rejected proposals for what they deem useful symbols, while others are added.
- throw0101d links to the Unicode emoji proposal status and clarifies the process, noting that "Most have been declined."
- Palomides expresses disappointment: "kinda mad guillotine got rejected, it concisely expresses a very popular sentiment."
- harwoodr shares similar feelings: "I'm more disappointed that 'Dumpster Fire' hasn't made the grade four times."
- throw0101d suggests a reason: "'Dumpster fire' is a idiomatic phrase in English/US, so may not be universal enough."
- harwoodr argues, "I'm not an American... but 'bin fire' seems to be a thing too."
- jowea brings up controversial inclusions: "Would controversial emojis even get widespread support? Look at what happened to gun emoji."
- bell-cot notes the "nerfing" of certain emojis: "'Gun', 'knife', and a fair number other emoji's are nerfed. Perhaps too much for many HNers. But not nearly enough for anyone who's had a stalker."
- runxel shares a personal experience: "Very interesting. I did the treasure chest emoji proposal back in 2018. Back then the committee was very determined not to let in more emojis – for the treasure the official response was that Unicode already had money symbols and that this should be more than enough for all use cases." They express happiness at its eventual inclusion but regret the delay.
- runarberg laments, "So we have a treasure chest but still no lighthouse."
- aydyn declares, "Unicode has gone too far. A handful of emojis, fine. Pictures are not language. We don't need a bunch of new pictures to 'support the world's writing systems' (their own words)."
- anikom15 and rmunn criticize the focus on emojis over archaic character forms and the deprecation of Han unification, with rmunn stating, "The number of times I've heard rants about the Unicode committee rejecting a perfectly valid historical character, yet adding more 'modern hieroglyphics' (emojis)... well, let's just say that it's happened more than once."
- gnulinux expresses frustration over missing essential characters: "I honestly don't understand why Unicode still doesn't have all subscript and superscript letters, which I personally need to use almost every day... but has 8 different varieties of alien emoji to choose from. I still can't write something as trivially simple as $1_G$... because unicode lacks subscript G (capital) but I can send my wife a slideshow made solely of emoji. It's unfortunate."
- arp242 and nabla9 debate whether emojis are character encoding or formatting issues, with gnulinux arguing that subscripts and superscripts carry distinct semantic meaning, akin to other dedicated symbols like the recycle emoji.
The "Yellow Default" and Skin Tone Diversity Debate
A significant portion of the discussion centers on the default yellow skin tone for human-like emojis and its perceived implications for racial representation, defaultism, and inclusivity.
- inanutshellus expresses discomfort with explicit skin tone and gender modifiers in professional settings like Slack, stating, "When in professional settings (like Slack), 'everyone's just a bright yellow smiley face' is much more professional and cohesive."
- pyrolistical suggests adding indeterminate gender options.
- ascorbic explains that Slack groups variants and that base emojis are typically yellow and gender-neutral.
- jameshart draws an analogy to LEGO minifigures: "The fact that the most enthusiastic adopters of non-yellow emojis seem to be non-white people, while white people tend to be more on the ‘I was fine being yellow’ side… just suck it up and pick a color." He argues that yellow, in practice, is not a neutral default when darker skin tones are also options.
- adamrezich defends the original intent of yellow as being abstract and inclusive, questioning the need for, and impact of, skin tone modifiers.
- paulryanrogers counters that the "steelman argument" is about representation for those who felt excluded, and that yellow is objectively closer to lighter complexions, which is an issue for those who have faced historical oppression.
- rmunn argues that the choice of emoji reflects perceived neutrality, stating, "Those who prefer to use the yellow emojis instead of the ones that would better reflect their skin tone... suggests strongly that they are trying to communicate a 'skin tone doesn't matter in the context of this communication' message."
- jameshart clarifies his point, stating he is not accusing original designers of racist intent but rather highlighting the "differential impact" and how in Western culture, "default yellow' is actually 'default white'," making the choice to stick with yellow a tacit choice of whiteness for white users.
- skissane questions the "Western culture" framing, suggesting it might be more specific to a "progressive-leaning US(-centric) culture" and notes that yellow was historically associated with East Asians, not Europeans.
- nomdep posits that identifying with a skin color is "incredibly racist."
- jszymborski criticizes the call for cohesion by saying, "Can you not be cohesive as a group while acknowledging that you are not all the same gender or race? ... this is giving 'I don't mind gay people as long as it's not too in my face' vibes."
- hdjrudni proposes making emoji UI configurable or pushing for broader color support, like 10-bit color, to allow for greater personalization.
- chrismorgan raises the issue of contrast, noting how emoji skin tones can degrade legibility, and that yellow provides good contrast on both light and dark backgrounds.
Hacker News's Stance on Emojis
There's a side discussion about Hacker News's own policy regarding emojis in comments.
- bbor expresses a desire for HN to "end the baffling anti-emoji stance. They’re adorable, versatile, fun, and useful."
- lifthrasiir suggests a compromise: "I think HN should allow emojis but strip all colors out of them. Colors are what often makes emojis so annoying---without them they are just another characters."
- arduanika interprets this as HN's attempt to "keep it pg."
- WalterBright expresses a preference for phonetic alphabets over emojis and notes his satisfaction that the D forums don't allow emojis.
Specific Emoji Proposals and Interpretations
Various specific emojis and their potential uses or rejections are mentioned.
- The "Distorted Face" emoji and its relation to the "Open Eye Crying Laughing Face" (nicknamed "Rolf") is discussed by a_shovel, jzymbaluk, and Zee2.
- The utility of the "rockfall" versus "landslide" emoji is debated by pcthrowaway and bbor.
- The "Sasquatch" emoji elicits both excitement and skepticism.
- The rejection of the "guillotine" and "dumpster fire" emojis is noted.
- The "Man in Turban" emoji is briefly discussed regarding its cultural representation.
- The significance of killer whales to Portuguese sailors is brought up by bsimpson.
- The lack of a "soldier" emoji and discussions around uniform and weaponry are initiated by 2OEH8eoCRo0, Spivak, and eviks.
- The absence of a "chainsaw" emoji is a point of bitterness for hungmung.
- A "fig hand gesture" emoji proposal status is highlighted by AndriyKunitsyn.
- The lack of hemp-related emojis is attributed to "American puritanism" by brodo.
- The desire for "mimosa's branches and Italian cards" is expressed by ZeD.
Technical Aspects and Future of Unicode
The technical implementation and future direction of Unicode also feature in the discussion.
- The inconsistency of emoji rendering across different operating systems and browsers is highlighted as a significant communication barrier by meta-meta, JohnFen, and causal.
- The searchability of emojis by name on Apple devices is mentioned as a helpful feature.
- The debate around Han unification and its impact on character encoding and font management is discussed by anikom15, rmunn, numpad0, and lifthrasiir.
- There's a suggestion for AI-driven emoji rendering and the concept of "emoji_start" and "emoji_end" codepoints as a more flexible approach to stubish.
- The prospect of extending the Unicode character space or forking standards is considered by layer8 and paulryanrogers.
- The argument that emojis are essentially a "formatting issue" rather than a character encoding one is presented by arp242 and nabla9, but countered by gnulinux who argues for the semantic meaning of certain character representations.
- The discussion touches on the idea that companies might package their own emoji sets, with Firefox on Windows being mentioned.