Comment submitted on Monday 2 May 2016, 09:00 CET to http://www.unicode.org/review/pri321/ HTML version at: http://possiblebodies.constantvzw.org/feedback.html Opt Subject: Issues with modifier mechanism, UTS #52 We are submitting these comments to the Proposed Draft UTS #52, Unicode Emoji Mechanisms because we think there are serious issues with the general implications of the modifier mechanism that was already introduced in Unicode 8 with Skin Tone Modifiers. We believe UTS #52 possibly contravenes both the mission and bylaws of the Unicode Consortium. We wish to identify issues that we hope will have an impact on decisions and future policies. We suggest a reconsideration of the underlying logic of the modifier mechanism as applied to emoji. These comments were formulated by an international, multilingual group of researchers working in the field of software and media. We investigate and produce a wide-range of projects around the role of standards and the politics embedded in infrastructures of communication, and are using emoji intensively in our communication. We are thus deeply concerned about the directions that emoji related standards have taken so far, and are being proposed to take in the future. The introduction of emojis into the Unicode standard shows a contradiction at the heart of the Unicode project, specifically if we consider the ways in which the precedent of Skin Tone Modifiers advance the reduction of types and attributes in the name of increased particularity. This lapse in logic exposes the inherent biases and considerable problematics that underwrites such a proposal and move. We want to emphasize that emojis are functioning in the realm of semantics rather than syntax. As a result they bring up radically other issues than those related to the domain of written characters. We question the fundamental assumptions that diversity should be expressed through a "modifier" at all: 1. By positing a "normal" baseline against which difference is to be measured, the mechanism sets up problematic relations between the categories that act as modifiers and the pictographs that they modify. If we, for example, imagine what the consequences would be of adding "disability" as a modifier to future Unicode specifications, it is easy to understand this tension. Disability should never be conceived of as a condition of modification to a base-line standard. In practice however, it would have to be implemented exactly in this way, not unlike the way the Skin Tone Modifiers are now implemented and more importantly perceived as a "blackface" modifier to a "white" base.[1] 2. To express diversity as a "variant" is a reductive response to the complexity of identities and their representational needs. If we consider the implementation of gender variants (male, female, neutral) for example, we can foresee issues with expressing more complex gendered formations such as transgender or transsexuality. This issue would not be solved by augmenting the resolution of the variants, as the mechanism of varying between binary opposites itself is fundamentally flawed.[2] 3. The consortium should take into account how, once implemented, the modifiers will function in todays media environment. Should Unicode-compliant search engines differentiate results according to modifier categories? There is a documented case of Instagram searches that return different results depending on emoji with the Skin Tone Modifier applied.[3] We think that the responsibility for instituting such potential for segregation lies not (only) with the one who implements, but rather with the one who proposes and defines a standard. Unicode can not neglect to consider such consequences. Aside from impacting the equal access to information, the mechanism can be expected to be used in reverse, as a method to identify authors of content on the basis of their supposed race, gender etc. 4. The proposed modifiers for skin tone and haircolor are both based upon questionable external standards. In the case of the Skin Tone Modifiers, the Consortium has chosen to use the Fitzpatrick scale in an attempt to find a "neutral" gauge for skin tone. The argument was made that it 'has the advantage of being recognized as an external standard without negative associations'.[4] In doing so, the Consortium has conflated and misunderstood a medical standard for the way human skin responds to UV exposure, with a scale that represents skin color.[5] Furthermore, the Fitzpatrick scale has a lineage to colonialism via the Von Luschan's chromatic scale. To ignore this lineage is emblematic of implementing a standard without careful examination of its scientific, political, cultural and social context of production. In TR52, when discussing the options for haircolor, the consortium insists on a limited palette by referring to the "cartoon style" nature of emoji.[6] At the same time the proposal refers to the US Online Passport application form as the "standard" to follow when choosing this limited palette. The way the U.S. State Department chooses to view and categorize people is a particular expression of how the border control agency sees a person, it should not have to make its way into daily communications. Rather than suggesting a less "loaded" standard to follow, we argue that this is yet another example of the unavoidable and unsolvable problems that the Unicode consortium runs into with the logic of the modifier mechanism. The origins of emojis demonstrate a certain inventiveness on the part of users, but now 'novelty' has been subsumed into a template of standardised add-ons or modifiers circumscribing, in effect, the creative capacities of users. Language is a realm of invention and play in which the inherent ambiguity of meaning allows for the richness of human expression. The arbitary relations between signifier and signified is something that simply cannot be standardised without severely limiting creative possibilities for communication and expression across social and technical systems. We find that the difficulties originate in the fact that the semantic layer that the emojis belong to, needs to go beyond syntax which means it is not as directly computable. Semantics cannot simply be reduced to standardised implementations or understandings without being an ideological project at the same time. To us, the Unicode project is important as a worthy attempt to develop universal standards that are cross-compatible technically and inclusive of cultural difference: 'to enable people around the world to use computers in any language, by providing freely-available specifications and data to form the foundation for software internationalization...'.[7] We support this basic premise, yet we are deeply troubled by the tendency towards ideological presumptions that have been the subject of fierce debates in civil society, as for instance in the case of the civil rights movement in the US. Implementation of universal standards on this basis carries a danger of augmenting racist and sexist undertones. We hope to have demonstrated sufficiently the problems that have arisen (and will further arise) when dealing with the issue of diversity through the modifier mechanism. We understand for reasons of backwards compatibility it is not desirable to revert the decisions made for Unicode 8.0. To prevent further irreversible contraventions to the mission and bylaws of the Unicode Consortium, we strongly suggest to refrain from implementing any further modification mechanisms for emoji. Geoff Cox (Associate Professor, Aarhus University, Denmark) Linda Hilfling Ritasdatter (PhD candidate, Malmö University) David Gauthier (PhD candidate, University of Amsterdam) Geraldine Juárez (MFA candidate, Valand Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden) Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard (PhD candidate, Aarhus University, Denmark) Helen Pritchard (Research Fellow, Goldsmiths, University of London) Peggy Pierrot (Independent researcher, Brussels) Roel Roscam Abbing (Independent researcher, Rotterdam) Susan Schuppli (Senior Lecturer, Goldsmiths University of London) Molly Schwartz (PhD candidate, Malmö University) Femke Snelting (Constant, association for art and media, Brussels) Eric Snodgrass (PhD candidate, Malmö University) Winnie Soon (PhD candidate, Aarhus University Denmark) Magdalena Tyzlik-Carver (Research Fellow, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/10/how-apples-new-multicultural-emojis-are-more-racist-than-before/ [2] http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/13/facebook_custom_gender_options_here_are_all_56_custom_options.html [3] http://rhizome.org/editorial/2015/dec/08/uif618-your-ascii-goodbye/ [4] http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2014/14213-skin-tone-mod.pdf [5] http://www.beauty-review.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-validity-and-practicality-of-sun-reactive-skin-types-I-through-VI.pdf [6] http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr52/tr52-1.html#Introduction [7] http://unicode.org/ /////////////////////////////////////////// Discussion, notes The extension of the modifiers from skin tone to haircolor for example, is an attempt to use a 'neutral' gauge for skin tone the Consortium has chosen the Fitzpatrick scale (Itself based on the explicitly colonial Von Luschan's chromatic scale with 36 categories of the early 20th century). In doing so, the Consortium has conflated and misunderstood a medical standard about the responsiveness to UV with a scale to represent skin color. By choosing this scale as a reference, arguing for it based on the fact that it's used by the cosmetic industry as a scientific reference, the Unicode consortium didn't pay attention to the fact that it was in itself problematic, in its conception and in its use, as not based on actual skin reaction mesurement, but declarative statement of a small panel of persons answering the question : how is your sunburn after 24 hours, how much tan do you get in one week.(see : http://www.beauty-review.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-validity-and-practicality-of-sun-reactive-skin-types-I-through-VI.pdf ). In Emojis modifiers, this reaction to UV which was not phenotyped based (i.e. no correlation to skin color), ends up to incarnate phenotype. To us, even though we know that we cannot reconsider it, this exemple is emblematic to the problem of 'outsourcing' a choice to another standard without examining what is this standard is made of, in which scientific, political, cultural or social context. In TR52 for example, when discussing the possiblities for haircolor, the consortium insists on a limited palette by refereing to the 'cartoon style' nature of Emoji. At the same time however the proposal refers to the 'US Online Passport application form' as the 'standard' to follow when choosing this limited palette. How the U.S. State Department chooses to view and categorize people is a very particular expression of how a border control agency sees a person. Rather than suggesting a different standard to follow which might not be as 'loaded' as the State Department's, we would rather argue that this serves as yet another example of the problematics, which are unavoidable and unsolvable, when the logic of the modifier continues to be introduced in the realm of Emoji. Language hs always been in its very nature and history a generative and evolving form that resists fixity. It should not be constrained to an ISO standard. TO DO - Add references - space of complexity transgender - combination of 4 modifiers National identity, gender, ---- comments so far: http://www.unicode.org/review/pri321/ We are not just writing it for Unicode, but also for others interested in the process Skin tone was already a problematic response to the issue of diversity, do not continue extending the same logic. How to bring all the ideas, questions back to the report mechanism The comment is specifically about: www.unicode.org/reports/tr52/tr52-1.html a round of ideas: Discussing resolution, testing cross-device communication More options, less power to Unicode How/if a comment would legitimize the Unicode process? Can you comment when you don't accept the premise of Unicode, or how could you comment? Refusing to engage -- a statement (that doesn't get heard) Creole vs pidgin: subverting Unicode through use. Pidgin as undermining the masters' language. Accessible for non-literate communicator. See it in context of visual culture. If EN is not your first language. Connecting to people beyond the borders of language. Diversity vs. difference. A superficial way of understanding difference. Trapped into this techno-corporate culture and logic. "Unicute" cuteness of a form of depolitisation. Operalitisation of cuteness. Ref. Brussels lockdown and catvideos. "solutions". Are we attacking the monster from above, and not from below -- work on the front-end, not back-end. What about filter if you want to receive modifiers, and what they would do. Or simplifying the renderings. Developing tools for reduction. By buying into complexity, we step into the game. How can we withdraw. strategy vs tactics, ratther than reacting to unicode, implementing own font. It is about adding a semantic level to a syntactic system, it becomes ideological. there are a lot of subcultures, making them cheaper to read. Refer back to the Unicode mission statement. Ghost in the shell -- making Scarlett Johanson look Asian. Politics on the Internet. Gamergate. An attempt to govern on another level. Issue is larger, not just Unicode. From compatibility to data governing. Semantic capitalism. conservatism of emoji. boxing, solutionism to complexity of language. Undermining their own mission by getting emoji in. Emojis are (not) modular. Let us not forget who is in the consortium. Ref. Racial profiling in Facebook. Emojis not necessary for racial profile, it is another building block in this. It might extend the population. FB avoids the word 'race', they don't own up to racial profiling by calling it 'african-american affinity groups' Identity politics in US translated to other places. Particular point of view on identity exported to everywhere. Race-politics in US are not actually translated. Fitzpatrick scale is an US standard. Declarative (I feel sensitive) vs. skin-color measuring. Behavior. Right to be opaque, to not be specific (not to be specified), being ambiguous. Japanese culture into commodified language Danger of high resolution Granularity and possibilities for new markets, data mining. Affinity, kinships, proxies. Fitzpatrick as a relational scale. Title of the comment Pre-ambule We think that the issue that the consortium tried to adress with the modifiers is unresolvable *Who is providing feedback *Aim of comment is to point at the encoding segregation produced through modifiers and discuss options in the given situation *From pictogram to high res image - The problems that are being discussed in the workshop are really more a problem about culture, that happen to involve "standards" from Unicode, alientation (by the decisions they working group of Unicode make), etc.. This problem, seems to be derived by the persasiveness of a certain kind of western culture and a certain kind of understanding the color aspect of race, which do not really define race. So its super complicated and i maybe don't think the solution is technical. (as in modifying the standards of Unicode) -- Maybe we should have only white emojis so we deal with this instead of pretend modifiers equal the inclusion off difference in society. I think emojis are indeed diverse, but we need difference not only diversity (which is a very docil. easy way to embrace diversity) Maybe this is a non-problem problem DG comment on territory + codeblocks text vs. image: e.g. ideograms, logograms, person with ball ? everything as a modifier option esperanto utopias, local creoles