Which do not help me to decide whether or not to drop the graphics smileys on Jappix ! 
IMO, it makes more sense to have the extension conform to Diaspora, not change Diaspora to conform to the extension. Iām in favor of dropping them from Jappix.
The software SHOULD show me everyone elseās smileys (or emoticons, or emojiā¦) exactly as they intended it. Iām not sure, but it sounds like some people are saying they never even want to see a smiley (for aesthetic purposes?) and so want an option to filter them out while reading other peopleās posts. That sounds pretty misguided, bordering on censorship. You might as well filter out all swear words, or words that begin with the letter Q, or the names of football teams you donāt likeā¦
Oh, not this argument again. How on earth does choosing what I see amount to censorship? You might as well say Iām censoring by choosing not to read every single blog post on the internet. It doesnāt stop anyone from publishing what they want (which is what censorship actually means); it just enables me, personally, to choose what I see, personally, with my own eyes. Please donāt call this migsuided or try to equate it with censorship.
ps: Iām just about to ācensorā all films currently on release by not going to the cinema tonight.
Another way of saying it: censorship is preventing people from saying what they want to say. Allowing people to choose what they see doesnāt prevent anyone from saying what they want to say, so isnāt censorship. What youāre proposing, on the other hand, means forcing people to see what they donāt want to see, which is definitely misguided.
@goob On more pragmatic means : we cannot store unfinished posts and treats how to display them based on wether or not they decided to display smileys in their timeline.
If we decide to implement smileys, itās everything or nothing : the poster deceided to have smileys, everyone sees smileys. The poster decided not to, nobody sees smileys.
IMO, it makes more sense to have the extension conform to Diaspora, not change Diaspora to conform to the extension.
I agree with you, but still, I think ddefinitively dropping graphic smileys is a huge step backwardā¦
Youāve mentioned me name in your reply but quoted someone else, and appear to be addressing a point not made by me.
@goob Well, I said bordering on censorship. I know itās not the same. I probably shouldnāt have used the word at all, sorry. Not sure what else to call it, but I still think itās a really bad idea. Not horribly dangerous and illegal like actual censorship, just bad for communication in general. If I am using a certain platform to communicate with you, then I am trusting the platform to deliver my message accurately to you. Once delivered, you can do whatever you please with it. Itās totally your right to install or create a browser extension to block or alter things however you want. I just donāt think the platform should be complicit in the mangling of my message. That erodes my trust in the platform.
@goob : I was answering to :
Allowing people to choose what they see doesnāt prevent anyone from saying what they want to say, so isnāt censorship. What youāre proposing, on the other hand, means forcing people to see what they donāt want to see, which is definitely misguided.
And I wanted to mean that we cannot format written messages based on the willing of every one that is going to see them.
To answer both Rob and Augier:
In what way does replacing a yellow cartoon smiley with a text-based emoticon (and potentially vice versa) change the meaning or content of a post? Text-based emoticons and their cartoon equivalents convey (or are intended to convey) the same significance. Really, itās akin to displaying a message in a different typeface. Thereās no change in meaning. There would potentially be a change in meaning if smileys were completely blocked, which is what Rob proposes above.
I will absolutely block any proposal to introduce support for graphical smileys without also introduce a user option to display their text-based equivalents. That is a terrible idea.
@goob It occurs to me you might be thinking of this as just a display question, but I see it as a content question.
This would be the quick and superficial way to implement:
User A has āconvert to smileysā option turned on, types a message with :), sees a graphic smiley, but the message is stored with the original plain :). Then when the message is displayed to User B there is another opportunity to convert it again or not, and so it seems logical that User B should have some say in the matter. I would call this a non-implementation, since User A has no reason to believe his message will be seen as intended, and the smileys basically amount to window dressing for his own amusement.
I think this is the correct implementation:
User A has āconvert to smileysā option turned on, types a message with :), and it is actually converted to a graphic smiley. Or maybe they choose from a menu of graphic smileys, or emojis, or god-knows-what other awful dancing sparkly stupid things he wants to include. Either way, the graphic smiley (or at least, some code indicating THAT specific graphic smiley) is embedded with the stored message, and is PART of the message, as if I had embedded my own custom image or anything else.
If I think a winking smiley, a monkey, a birthday cake, and a pair of sunglasses is an essential part of my message, then the platform should respect that and deliver it faithfully. If you think that makes me sound like a dumb teenager then you can block me, but donāt ask the platform to change what I said.
In what way does replacing a yellow cartoon smiley with a text-based emoticon (and potentially vice versa) change the meaning or content of a post? Text-based emoticons and their cartoon equivalents convey (or are intended to convey) the same significance. Really, itās akin to displaying a message in a different typeface. Thereās no change in meaning.
I donāt think there really is an obvious one-to-one map of text to graphic and back to text when you get into more complicated smileys, and especially with emoji, etc. Yes, for the simple ones like and 
the meaning is pretty clear, but there is WHOLE world of graphic icons out there, with different subtleties and accents. Every smiling face is not the same. Thatās like if I posted a picture of my dog, and you changed it to a different dog and said āwhatās the difference? Itās still a dogā.
There are really two debates getting mixed up here:
-
Should we support smileys or emoji or anything like that at all? This is a valid debate about how essential these things are to communication in general, how much we want to cater to the general public, etc. I would personally be totally fine with none of this stuff on D* whatsoever ā though I also see the point of those who argue for it.
-
IF WE DO decide to support them, how should it be done. This is what I feel strongly about. If we are going to support them, we should support them correctly and properly. Your suggestion is essentially feature sabotage: āSure, go ahead and implement as long as it doesnāt affect me in any wayā. I donāt think thatās valid. Either you implement or you donāt, but if you do implement you implement correctly.
There would potentially be a change in meaning if smileys were completely blocked, which is what Rob proposes above.
Where did I propose that?
And yes, @goob, if you hate smileys and emoji you definitely should block any attempt to implement support for them. And it should take a whole lot of yes votes to overcome your (or anyone elseās) block. Cause it will significantly alter the landscape, no doubt.
The graphics of smilies allows given color.
Itās almost as if you were chatting in a chat with someone and you send him a picture (Snapchat, MMS whatever) with a grin! Itās more alive than explained that grimace text!
By cons when I speak of emoticons or smileys, Iām referring to the basic ones such as these:
:-/ etcā¦
To overcome the problems, it is possible to make [;-D] for example !
Personally Iām not a fan of big emoji where there are hundreds!
I saw more than a small batch of smileys like a phpBB forum!
I promise you this: Once you open the pandoraās box of graphic smileys thereās gonna be no stopping the flood. So either keep that box shut tight, or face it head on, embrace the madness, and do it right.
@goob : I think you are thinking too pragmatic. The problem I see with no smileys is not a semantic one. It is aesthetic one. Smileys are fun, thatās all. And what is fun makes d* more attractive, more intuitive.
Now, I understand your position. In a sense, I feel that you fear smileys to turn diaspora* into an empty social network, with no critical sense, like Facebook is, and I canāt refrain from agreeing with youā¦ Itās difficultā¦
Smileys are fun, thatās all.
We can also disagree on this point, then.
Well, for a great part of the users, at least think I. Maybe we sould vote ?
I tend to agree with @augier. Smileys are fun. Following as evoked @augier if your concern is that Diaspora become a Facebook uninteresting, do you honestly believe that it will be different without smileys?
Iām sure not. And then it takes for everyone. Letās vote!
Proposal: Should we implement graphic smileys in chat, posts and comments with possibility to disable auto-transform text to graphic smileys ?
Currently, the Jappix chat automaticly transform text smileys to graphic smileys. Should we keep this feature and extend it to posts and comments with the possibility to disable the automatic transform to graphic smileys ?
Outcome: Not relevant
Votes:
- Yes: 8
- Abstain: 4
- No: 6
- Block: 4
Note: This proposal was imported from Loomio. Vote details, some comments and metadata were not imported. Click here to view the proposal with all details on Loomio.
Embedding images is not a solution for emoticons and it is ridiculous to offer that as a solution.