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.
-
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?
-
-
Not sure why you think a simple list of do-not-render sequences entails “massive cost.” See the Pinterest example via
@zeynep in my earlier tweet Her book has a solid intro on how affordances of social technologies shape behaviour. This is not new stuff—reading it will help
-
It won't work, because the trolls who would actually use this maliciously *love* a technical challenge, and any time someone comes up with a new offensive sequence everyone can just copy and paste it trivially. This is like word filters. They don't work.
End of conversation
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.