Unicode = a standard. Specific software = *implementations* of Unicode. Totally fine for implementation developers to say "we choose to not support rendering certain character combinations." Problem solved!
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
"If it's not perfect, it's not effective" is a false premise China's 'great firewall' isn't 100% perfect; one can get around it with niche VPNs. But it's a chore, so the vast majority of people don't bother. That's enough to ensure >95% of netizens see nothing about 1989-06-04
+ ⃠ = China's 'great firewall' is a totalitarian control device and has many, many false positives and side effects. I'm sorry, but if you're going to use the GFW to argue for attempting to control hate via font rendering hacks, you've already lost the argument.
-
-
I dislike it, as much as you seem to, because it's an effective device. If you want to follow your own exhortation to think about people, rather than software, you could think and read about *why* it's effective.
-
It's effective at a *massive cost*. It is not a good example for how we should be approaching the fact that someone discovered one more way to express hate on the Internet. How is banning a two-codepoint combination going to significantly solve homophobia?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.