MetaFilter is http://๐Ÿ•๐Ÿ’ฉ.ws/๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿž๐Ÿฉ๐Ÿจ๐ŸŽจ๐Ÿช
July 9, 2015 8:37 AM   Subscribe

http://๐Ÿ•๐Ÿ’ฉ.ws is a website that lets you convert URLs to emoji. via
posted by Going To Maine (72 comments total) 15 users marked this as a favorite
 
MetaFilter is http://๐Ÿ•๐Ÿ’ฉ.ws/๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿž๐Ÿฉ๐Ÿจ๐ŸŽจ๐Ÿช

Needs more ๐Ÿ†.
posted by Fizz at 8:43 AM on July 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


MeTa
posted by schmod at 8:46 AM on July 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


I don't understand emoji and therefore I am afraid of it and I just want it to go away.
posted by bondcliff at 8:49 AM on July 9, 2015 [8 favorites]


a website that lets you convert URLs to emoji tiny boxes containing meaningless alphanumeric codes.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:49 AM on July 9, 2015 [18 favorites]


tiny boxes containing meaningless alphanumeric codes.

Even better is that Chrome (on Windows right now) displays the emoji in the post title correctly, but not in the title bar of the tab. Also better is that the emoji are butt-ugly. Seriously, "koala" looks like Danger Mouse (the DJ, not the spy) and "cookie" is like ... shower drain maybe?

Pizza shit, indeed.
posted by uncleozzy at 8:52 AM on July 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


So...is that pizza and soft serve or pizza and poo?
posted by FJT at 8:54 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


a website that lets you convert URLs to emoji tiny boxes containing meaningless alphanumeric codes.

๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘ด

So...is that pizza and soft serve or pizza and poo?

WAKE UP SHEEPLE
posted by zamboni at 8:56 AM on July 9, 2015 [8 favorites]




Chrome on Ubuntu shows a row of empty boxes, followed by another row of empty boxes.

The void in a frame is still the void.
posted by Devonian at 9:00 AM on July 9, 2015


I find it disturbing that the pizza is poo-adjacent.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 9:03 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


They used an image of emoji for their logo on the website, which seems like cheating of the highest order.
posted by smackfu at 9:05 AM on July 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


๐Ÿ’ฏ๐Ÿ†’
posted by ardgedee at 9:06 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


a website that lets you convert URLs to emoji tiny boxes containing meaningless alphanumeric codes.

This.
Can we please kill this emoji-in-titles thing now? Pretty please? With fire?
posted by Thorzdad at 9:17 AM on July 9, 2015 [4 favorites]


Or you could switch from Chrome to a browser that supports Emojis.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:19 AM on July 9, 2015


Can we please kill this emoji-in-titles thing now? Pretty please? With fire?

Take it to MeTa.
posted by zamboni at 9:19 AM on July 9, 2015


My chrome supports emojis just fine.

This made me laugh.
posted by lumpenprole at 9:20 AM on July 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


No beans? I call shenanigans.
posted by cooker girl at 9:26 AM on July 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


๐Ÿšซ๐Ÿ˜ฃ๐Ÿต๐Ÿฒ๐Ÿ‘ถ๐Ÿป
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 9:33 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


The problem with emoji is that the reasons why they start or stop working for people are mysterious 99% of the time. I used to get boxes, then I stopped. Sometimes the boxes come back when I use the same type of browser on a different computer. Why? I have no idea.

The emoji rollout has been truly awful, and I suspect that it's made a lot of folks feel much more out of touch with technology for more or less no good reason. I hope somebody does some good studies and then writes a book.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:37 AM on July 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


Chrome Firefox on Ubuntu shows a row of empty boxes, followed by another row of empty boxes.
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:39 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


"Lets you", well, thanks, I guess.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 9:40 AM on July 9, 2015


Or you could switch from Chrome to a browser that supports Emojis.

I'm using Firefox v.38. on Mac. I see only boxes whenever anyone goes emoji-crazy here.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:40 AM on July 9, 2015


On Ubuntu 14.04, sudo apt-get install ttf-ancient-fonts should work without a reboot or even opening/closing the browser.
posted by en forme de poire at 9:45 AM on July 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


*Or you could switch from Chrome to a browser that supports Emojis.

I'm using Firefox v.38. on Mac. I see only boxes whenever anyone goes emoji-crazy here.*

I'm using Firefox v.Current on a Mac. Emojis show up fine. :(
posted by Going To Maine at 9:46 AM on July 9, 2015


I do most of my Metafiltering from work (chromium, Linux) and I don't have permission to make the necessary changes to get emojis working. Wish they were banned from titles at least until rollout is more complete.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 9:47 AM on July 9, 2015


(reads title)

sudo apt-get purge ttf-ancient fonts
posted by en forme de poire at 9:47 AM on July 9, 2015 [4 favorites]


I could switch from Chrome to a browser that supports emojis IF I WANTED TO SEE EMOJIES.

Can you guess why I haven't switched?

The move from hieroglyphs to character symbols started around 2100 BCE, and has generally been seen as a good idea ever since. Along with antibiotics, electricity and the distillation of spirituous liquors, I consider this progress as a true mark of civilisation and part of the ineluctable move away from the raw chaos of animal mind towards the intellectual embrace of truth, beauty and cosmic awareness which is our true destiny.

Loathsome dits of pixel shit. May they rot the screens of every device they besmirch.
posted by Devonian at 9:53 AM on July 9, 2015 [20 favorites]


The only good and satisfying thing about emoji is making fun of the overuse of emoji. Also deliberately misinterpreting whatever is being said via emoji, like when sad dudes send you a trumpet and you're supposed to decipher the witty and erudite message that they are horny.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:04 AM on July 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


Devonian, I want to favorite your post but I get a page loading error. I think it's the emoji on this page that make it not load.
posted by elizilla at 10:10 AM on July 9, 2015


Loathsome dits of pixel shit. May they rot the screens of every device they besmirch.

ASCII is 55 years old, grandpa. Join the 21st century.
posted by Talez at 10:15 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


The killer is that emoji are not even a particularly good implementation of the deeply crap idea they instantiate. The image set is poor, unimaginative, and incoherent where it needed to be sharp, ingenious, and rich.
posted by Segundus at 10:23 AM on July 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


So...is that pizza and soft serve or pizza and poo?

You can tell it's poo because of the eyes in it.
/NotEatingPeopleAgainISwear
posted by sexyrobot at 10:23 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


I will be so happy when this trend is over. I mean when corporate PR types turn to it as the best way to be cool and hip and down with the kids (or whatever phrase it is they use to justify bandwagon jumping) it's time for it to die.
posted by sardonyx at 10:26 AM on July 9, 2015


Whether or not emojis render properly doesn't seem to be completely browser-dependent. None of these are rendering on Firefox on the computer I'm currently on, but I know most of them will if I fire up the laptop downstairs (also running Firefox and both up-to-date versions).
posted by yoink at 10:27 AM on July 9, 2015


i just don't understand the appeal. i mean it's one of those things swoosh over my head. I see emoji, but usually don't understand what the fuck is going on.
posted by angrycat at 10:30 AM on July 9, 2015


My browser supports emojis, but my heart does not.
posted by oulipian at 10:33 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Tried to use one in Tweetdeck, didn't work. Just a link to http://๐Ÿ•๐Ÿ’ฉ.ws site followed by pointless emoji.
posted by General Malaise at 10:37 AM on July 9, 2015


Loathsome dits of pixel shit. May they rot the screens of every device they besmirch.

๐Ÿ‘ด๐Ÿ˜ฑโ˜๏ธ
posted by zamboni at 10:41 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


> Loathsome dits of pixel shit. May they rot the screens of every device they besmirch.

Get your eyebleach order in now because animated emoji are inevitable.
posted by jfuller at 10:42 AM on July 9, 2015


2014: Skin-tone emoji
2019: Animated emoji
2032: Scented emoji
2051: Sentient emoji
2097: ๐Ÿ˜ป elected president
2200: Still no shark emoji
posted by oulipian at 10:54 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


"Even better is that Chrome (on Windows right now) displays the emoji in the post title correctly, but not in the title bar of the tab."

They display fine, including on the tabs, in my Chrome on Windows.

Folks, this is just a unicode support issue. I don't have any trouble displaying these emojis because it matters to me that I'm able to display most of the foreign languages (including archaic and rare) that I encounter on the web, and so I make sure I have the most complete typefaces installed.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:02 AM on July 9, 2015


I make sure I have the most complete typefaces installed

So...if one wants to make sure one has the "most complete typefaces installed" what is the easiest way to go about it?
posted by yoink at 11:05 AM on July 9, 2015


Chrome 43 on Windows 7 seems to display emoji, which is a nice change. Only in monochrome, and seems to be missing some though. Like I get a box in the middle of this: ๐Ÿ‘ด๐Ÿ˜ฑโ˜๏ธ
posted by smackfu at 11:08 AM on July 9, 2015


I completely do not understand why people are so crazy about communicating with tiny pictures.
posted by agregoli at 11:17 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Get your eyebleach order in now because animated emoji are inevitable.

Animated emoji have (nearly) always been with us, but things are trending in the opposite direction. While the original Docomo iMode set was static, it was swiftly followed by the animated (KDDI) au and SoftBank (SB) sets. That said, while Unicode Technical Report #51 does allow for animated emoji presentation characters (an emoji presentation, with colorful and perhaps whimsical shapes, even animated), it's more what you call guidelines than actual rules, and no major emoji set does it. I believe GMail used to have animated emoji, but has since switched to displaying the static Android characters.
posted by zamboni at 11:25 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


(technically, that's not the original Docomo iMode set, but the current basic one.)
posted by zamboni at 11:30 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


If you spend a lot of time texting people on your phone, emoji are incredible useful way to communicate. There are things that can be said with emoji that cannot be said properly using text.

To my eyes, the set done by Apple (use Safari or iPhone to see them, I think they are also use in Firefox? I am not sure) are well drawn and are quite detailed and expressive for their size. The Android ones are quite poor by comparison.

GMail used to have animated emoji

They're actually still there, but only available in Gmail, not in Gchat. There are now tons of stickers and then the Android/Google representations of emoji.
posted by cell divide at 11:37 AM on July 9, 2015


I'm so clueless that I don't even understand what kind or degree of information is supposedly communicated via emoji. For example: the Chevy link that sardonyx posted. I can sort of decipher some meaning from it, if I squint and think about thingsโ€”but the ideas I'm able to extract from it are very vague and impressionistic. Something about driving through a city listening to music, then a couple of days pass, then a bunch of undecipherable shit involving a chicken (purchasing a new car?), then...uh...sports...

Okay, that's about as far as I can get.

Dead serious: can someone translate a few lines of this missive for me? I'm usually pretty good with culture and technology, but emoji is the first thing that's straight-up turned me into a Reader's Digest cartoon about "LOL KIDS THESE DAYS AND THEIR CYBERTWEETS, AM I RIGHT".
posted by escape from the potato planet at 11:39 AM on July 9, 2015


Dead serious: can someone translate a few lines of this missive for me?

Kids don't look at that and read it like it's obviously decipherable. For one thing, those aren't standard emoji I don't think, each appears to be a JPG that they have custom made although many of them are very similar to the Apple/Android versions.

Also, it says at the top of the page:

Try and decode this news or watch for the decoder at 2 p.m. EDT on Tuesday. #ChevyGoesEmoji
posted by cell divide at 11:45 AM on July 9, 2015


the only important emoji are the ones for beer, wine, martinis, and tacos.

the rest are irrelevant and extraneous.

oh, and the poop one. bc poop. we need that one.

the rest can go away.
posted by sio42 at 11:47 AM on July 9, 2015


escape from the potato planet, Chevrolet "kindly" provided the translation the following day.

To be honest, when I saw it in my inbox, I didn't even make an attempt to decipher it. It's supposed to be a press release. It's supposed to convey information quickly and easily. It didn't, so I didn't have time for it (except to ridicule it and mock it with colleagues and friends).
posted by sardonyx at 11:51 AM on July 9, 2015


"So...if one wants to make sure one has the "most complete typefaces installed" what is the easiest way to go about it?"

I periodically Google for new complete-as-possible unicode typefaces. Googling for "complete unicode font typeface windows" right now (incognito) interestingly turns up (for me) as the eighth result a MetaFilter post from 2011 about Quivira.

I'm pretty sure that the Segoe UI fonts that come with Win8 are moderately complete and, if you don't have those, then if you have Office installed you'll have (the now pretty old) Arial Unicode MS, which will work for many things (not emoji). I tend to have a lot of fonts installed and I don't keep track of what I've done, so I'm not really sure what I've installed at this point.

I know I have Quivira, and I'm sure that I have a few other free highly unicode-inclusive fonts installed. I don't know enough about how contemporary browsers handle all this -- what I've assumed is that if the font(s) explicitly defined in the stylesheet don't have a character, then the browser will still look for one installed in the system that does, but respective of whether the defined font is sans or serif. And then how it handles the UI stuff like the browser tabs is another matter -- I'm pretty sure that displaying emojis in tab titles (and, presumably, similarly in the browser UI) is a recent implementation of Chrome, like in the last few months. I don't know how it handles this, but since I have Win8.1 and Segoe UI is the main UI typeface, then it's available to Chrome, including the Segoe UI Emoji font. I think Segoe UI Emoji was implemented in Win8.1.

But with my Chrome (43.0.2357.132 m) and OS (Win 8.1 x64) and various fonts installed, I see all the emojis in this thread and, more interestingly, they show up in tab titles and I can select and right-click, say, "๐Ÿ˜ป" and it will show up in the context menu as "search Google for '๐Ÿ˜ป'" (which works fine, BTW) and such.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:53 AM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


There are things that can be said with emoji that cannot be said properly using text.

Not snark, genuinely curious: like what? (I'll even open the thread on my phone so I can read all of the emoji; I do agree that the Apple emoji are very nice, even if I don't "get" them.)
posted by uncleozzy at 11:53 AM on July 9, 2015


It's just a URL shortener that uses emoji for no real reason.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:02 PM on July 9, 2015


tacos

๐ŸŒฎ is new to Unicode 8, and isn't yet generally supported.

๐Ÿšซ๐Ÿ˜ฃ๐Ÿต๐Ÿฒ๐Ÿ‘ถ๐Ÿป

I'm going to have to wait for Unicode 8 to do mine properly:
๐Ÿ’๐Ÿšœ
posted by zamboni at 12:11 PM on July 9, 2015


Not snark, genuinely curious: like what?

My partner sends me a picture of our cat doing something cute, I send back ๐Ÿ˜ป( love-eye cat emoji), it says exactly what I feel at that moment and doesn't sound stilted or trite as it would if I wrote back some sort of message.

My co-worker texts that they accomplished something that we all struggled with at work, I text back ๐Ÿ™Œ๐Ÿผ (hands of praise), which is more succinct, expresses what I really mean better and is less trite than "great job" or something.

On a group text with friends, send birthday wishes to one of the group: โค๏ธ๐ŸŽ‰ ๐ŸŽŠ ๐ŸŽˆ (heart, celebration stuff, balloon) simply because it's more fun and expressive than just saying Happy Birthday alone.

Any of these could be done with text alone, but emoji is better, and helps reduce the disconnect between expressive speaking and the flatness of text conversations.
posted by cell divide at 12:15 PM on July 9, 2015 [4 favorites]


Any of these could be done with text alone, but emoji is better

Huh ... I don't disagree. Thanks for the explanation.

(Admittedly, I don't often use emoji, but sometimes send the octopus emoji just because the Apple octopus is adorable. Also somebody please tell me that's not the real Microsoft octopus. Come on.)
posted by uncleozzy at 12:22 PM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Also somebody please tell me that's not the real Microsoft octopus. Come on.

Microsoft Octopus just hasn't been the same since they introduced that Octopus 365 nonsense. Octopus 2007 for life.
posted by fifthrider at 12:26 PM on July 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


Kids don't look at that and read it like it's obviously decipherable.

Okay, well, points taken, but...I do see emoji used in ways that seems to be intended to communicate meaning. Like this comment from the uncomplicated soups of my childhood. I see bowls of something, and a baby's face, so perhaps it refers to his/her username, but...what do the other characters mean? (The last character shows up as a peach square inside a gray hairline border for me, so perhaps I'm missing a key image.)

And then we have cell divide arguing that "[t]here are things that can be said with emoji that cannot be said properly using text".

I just don't get it. It seems to be little more than a game of "let me see what tiny pictures I can find within this predefined subset that vaguely support this general idea, thus forcing the recipient to squint at their phone and guess what sentiment I meant to express". That seems neither useful as communication, nor worth the time as an amusement.

The thing is, I understand the smileys in AOL Instant Messenger, or on phpBB message boards. But emoji is differentโ€”people are always combining multiple emoji symbols in almost sentence-like ways, and that's the part I don't get. I can't imagine any motivation for doing that except to communicate some kind of meaning. And yet neither can I decipher any kind of meaning from it. Ergo, WTF.

I suppose it's just one of those things that's not for me. ๐Ÿ˜ณ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿ™๐Ÿ†โšก๏ธ๐Ÿ’ ๐ŸŽฒ
posted by escape from the potato planet at 12:35 PM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


It's just a URL shortener that uses emoji for no real reason.

You've solved my FPP puzzle!
posted by Going To Maine at 12:56 PM on July 9, 2015


Still waiting for full implementation of the taco, middle-finger and shiba emojis... when they are universally accessible we will have reached The Singularity.

I tried pizza-poop.wp on my inactive domain and got http://๐Ÿ•๐Ÿ’ฉ.ws/๐Ÿ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿจ๐Ÿ‘Š๐Ÿ”ฎ๐Ÿ• , aka "http://๐Ÿ•๐Ÿ’ฉ.ws/greenapple-tako-koala-fistbump-crystalball-shibainu" which is a relatively cool set of images to be associated with.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:59 PM on July 9, 2015


I see bowls of something, and a baby's face, so perhaps it refers to his/her username, but...what do the other characters mean?
Yep, it's their username.

(The last character shows up as a peach square inside a gray hairline border for me, so perhaps I'm missing a key image.)

Whatever browser you're using doesn't support the skin tone Emoji Modifiers introduced in Unicode 8, which brought much needed diversity to the human emoji characters (faces, hands, people, etc.). The last character is a combining character which affects the color of the preceding character - the intended effect is a baby with Fitzpatrick 1-2 coloured skin.
While the other Unicode 8 stuff isn't widely supported, Apple implemented the skin tone stuff ahead of everything else.
posted by zamboni at 1:41 PM on July 9, 2015


WHAT can be said properly with tiny pictures that can't be said with text? I'm honestly asking. Sorry, asked and answered...but still don't get it. Not for me I guess
posted by agregoli at 1:45 PM on July 9, 2015 [3 favorites]




Also somebody please tell me that's not the real Microsoft octopus. Come on.

At least Windows 8 uses monochrome vector emojis; that's a pixelated low-res rendering of that someone painted purple. Here's what it looks like on Windows 8 in Chrome (slightly enlarged): Octopus. I find those oversized creepy baby octopi pretty creepy, so I don't mind an adult one waving at me. YMMV, as usual.

(That emojipedia rendering reminds me of my favourite Wikipedia illustration ever. It was on the site for around 4 years, iiuc. No, nobody reads the Swedish wikipedia.)
posted by effbot at 3:53 PM on July 9, 2015


Emoticons (the image-based ones) became 'emoji' at some point. Not quite sure how or when that happened (I guess as they became standardized and font-based?), but the rebranding seems to have been a great success. And you know, anything that smacks of Japaneseness tends to twiddle the knobs of a lot of people in some demographics.

The precursors of these things were all over forum software and chat applications for decades (and still are), and I reckon right-thinking people tended to find them unbearably twee. They almost died out a few years back, and the momentum towards getting rid of them entirely was growing. They were the province of preteens and AOL-grandmas. I still find myself downgrading my opinion of people who use them rather than using their words, which is a prejudice to my detriment, perhaps, but there it is. I admit that I'll use a winky text-emoticon or the like sometimes in email or whatever, but that's as far as I tend to go, and even that feels like I'm succumbing to the ongoing infantilization of communication.

But the march forward seems inexorable, these days, thanks, I guess, to phones becoming many people's primary interface to the internet. Even Slack, which mathowie now works for, and which has been getting crazy amounts of buzz lately, has just added them as a Fantastic New Feature (to much applause from people I thought would know better), which pretty much means that the chances that I might get into using Slack just notched even lower. My loss, I guess.

I find it bizarre and retrograde, but the trend seems like a thing that is happening and is not going to go away any time soon.

If you spend a lot of time texting people on your phone, emoji are incredible useful way to communicate. There are things that can be said with emoji that cannot be said properly using text.

I don't text much, and when I do, I use it like some kind of literate-age dinosaur grandpa, with full sentences and punctuation. I do try, as a matter of personal policy, to try and see things from points of view I disagree with as much as I am able, but I simply cannot, much as I try, see how it's possible that 'there are things that can be said with emoji that cannot be said properly using text'.

Nobody has ever texted me a single message containing any emojis, so all good, so far. Live and let live is the rule, and I'm happy to follow it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:39 PM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


If your web browser can't display something, then obviously the correct advice is to change web browsers.

Because that's why the web was invented.

แ••( แ› )แ•—
posted by sidereal at 4:28 AM on July 10, 2015


Y'know that old joke about The Internet being like ancient Egypt? People writing on walls and worshipping cats? I guess someone thought we could also go back to write with pictures.

Next stage, anyone up to make a collective mouse clicker game where the goal is to build a pyramid?
posted by lmfsilva at 6:53 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


Emoticons (the image-based ones) became 'emoji' at some point. Not quite sure how or when that happened (I guess as they became standardized and font-based?), but the rebranding seems to have been a great success. And you know, anything that smacks of Japaneseness tends to twiddle the knobs of a lot of people in some demographics.

What happened was, a few Japanese cell phone companies started offering little icons in their text messages. (Possibly, one started and others followed suit for compatibility?) Their inclusion in SMS was the novel thing. Then Apple started offering built-in support for them as a way to cater to the Japanese market, so they got into the system keyboard, but you had to install Japanese language support. But then non-Japanese started liking them, and then other browsers started supporting them.

The big things that emoji have over graphical smilies is standardization and their own characters.

Standardization: while each renderer is free to determine what each emoji looks like, they should at least adhere to a text description. I'm not aware of an organized system of traditional, AOL IM-style graphical smilies.

Own characters: emoji are not synonyms/replacements for other sets of characters, or at least not in the sense of graphical replacements for emoticons. They are their own characters, and have their own positions in the Unicode standard. An emoji has no alternate rendering as other characters, it is its own character. Smiling-kitty-face may have no other rendition as standard ASCII or other Unicode.
posted by JHarris at 12:49 PM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]


If your web browser can't display something, then obviously the correct advice is to change web browsers.

I know. Fucking Facebook won't work on my Netscape 4 installation. What's next? Dropping IE6 support?
posted by Talez at 1:38 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


Possibly, one started and others followed suit for compatibility?

Docomo was first, and were quickly copied by KDDI and Softbank. The sets were mostly incompatible, and weren't unified until 2005. I think the Verge history has been posted before, but it's an interesting read.
posted by zamboni at 3:01 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]


God I hated graphical smilies along with all right-thinking people did back in the late 90s, but are emoji that ubiquitous? Other than the occasional stunt post they don't seem to be such a big deal? And being able to include silly little pictures in your text, you're against that? Are you also against joy?

I remember when we could post actual images on Metafilter, and even that didn't get overused that I remember. (The official reason we lost the img tag wasn't overuse or obnoxiousness, I seem to remember, but a security hole.)
posted by JHarris at 7:06 PM on July 10, 2015


« Older James Tate, 1943-2015   |   The Contentious Legacy of William Gaddis Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments