I like this attitude.
I would have liked this âletâs just try it outâ attitude when it came to removing the minimum character length for posts here in Discourse. I had suggested it, but it was rejected.
It would have been easy to try it out, and adjust it if it didnât work.
In the Julia Language forum at https://discourse.julialang.org , there is only one reaction, which is a 
emoji.
On the other hand, in the Discourse Community forum at https://meta.discourse.org,
there are 14 reactions, most of which are positive or neutral.
This is more in line with the principles of Nonviolent Communication.
Before trying this, it might be worth considering what other communities use and why.
Why does the company developing Discourse use those specific 14 emojis? What were the reasons behind their decision?
Are there any potential unintended consequences?"
We use 
in the OSM World Discord server. Weâve had exactly zero issues or incidents with the use of this emoji.
Here is a typical and recent discussion involving in the Discord server. Context is that I have made a few contentious mass edits in the past and people were probably expecting another spicy situation (which didnât happen this time).
As I understand, Discord allows any emoji to be used as a reaction, not just a few pre-selected ones. If we choose to select 10-14 emojis, we should do so thoroughly and with careful consideration.
emoji seems high enough to warrant inclusion even if we limit ourselves to that number.We have 
and 
which are both negative. Since you reacted to the OP with âŠ
âŠdoes that mean you were guilty of a violent communication? Should I discuss this with my attorney, therapist, health care provider, priest, rabbi, minister, law enforcement officer, teacher, mentor, or faith healer? Would you consider that a violent communication in the Hungarian forum where youâre a moderator?
Great idea!
Feel free to go ask them and stop wasting our time with research questions that you yourself donât want to bother finding the answer to.
Feel free to go ask them and stop wasting our time with research questions that you yourself donât want to bother finding the answer to.
The consequence will be people will start using the reaction.
In fact, people have been using the reaction throughout this thread in the body of messages and nothing bad has happened. Itâs a nice relief valve since mapping is often contentious and thereâs many disagreements on how to do things. If you can think of an unintended consequence, tell us, but otherwise stop wasting our time with questions you canât be bothered to find the answers to.
From my side, I have never seen that emoji being used in any Greek channel (inside and outside of OSM). Only from other countries and mostly from USA. So, I would consider it more of a USA trend rather than an international one.
Actually, despite their insistence on sweet popcorn, it is the most used in the Germany forum, with the sole example of its use in the United States forum coming after this discussion started. Of course, if you search the OSM US Slack youâll find plenty of usages. Itâs also widely used on Discord, which is a very international space (@Friendly_Ghostâs example above is Dutch).
Being widely used in two of the several communities of OpenStreetMap isnât a really strong argument to add the emoji in the reactions preset of this forum.
But I accept the fact that, as mentioned above, most people are for the addition (or to be precise for many of them, not against). If the @forums-governance agrees, the emoji could be added and later do an evaluation topic (or something less bureaucratic) to see if it should remain in the list or not, based on its acceptance.
We might need to reconsider the entire forum approach and anticipate future changes. While I may not always have strong arguments, we should evaluate this suggestion from the perspectives of both the OSMF (OpenStreetMap Foundation) and future community members.
The OpenStreetMap Foundation is officially responsible for this forum, and since itâs based in the UK, it must comply with the UK GDPR. This was updated and tightened on 2 September 2021 by a new ICO guidance, with a particular emphasis on childrenâs rights.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) recognises that children need special safeguards and care in all aspects of their life. There is agreement at international level and within the UK that much more needs to be done to create a safer online space for them to learn, explore and play.
In the UK, Parliament and government have acted to ensure that our domestic data protection laws truly transform the way we safeguard our children when they access online services by requiring the Commissioner to produce this statutory code of practice. This code seeks to protect children within the digital world, not protect them from it.
The code sets out 15 standards of age appropriate design reflecting a risk-based approach. The focus is on providing default settings which ensures that children have the best possible access to online services whilst minimising data collection and use, by default.
It also ensures that children who choose to change their default settings get the right information, guidance and advice before they do so, and proper protection in how their data is used afterwards.
IMHO: At OSMF, we havenât thoroughly considered from a childâs perspective what would be optimal and ethically expected of us. For instance, the new UK GDPR - ICO guidance strongly references The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), stating that childrenâs interests are paramount.
Although OSMF is currently under the radar of UK authorities, we will eventually be held accountable for DPIA guidance and the age-appropriate design code.
We must specifically address how any changes will impact children.
Since most social media companies and software firms are based in the USA, where The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) hasnât been adopted for some reason, comparisons should be made cautiously.
The OSMF could be held accountable for UK GDPR and UNCRC compliance, unlike an American forum.
Legally, UK authorities may hold us accountable for adopting âThe United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)â and adhering to the latest changes in the UK GDPR.
Therefore, I am inclined to suggest that those who might face potential legal consequences should make the final decision regarding the popcorn emoji. If most OSM workgroups and the OSMF board indicate that, according to their risk assessment, there are no issues, then I am fine with proceeding with the popcorn emoji.
But if itâs introduced, in my view, the ââ reaction could be seen as a manifestation of the bystander effect in the digital age.
For insights into the toxic effects of social media, particularly on mental health and children, Jonathan Haidtâs research is worth looking at: Jonathan Haidtâs Research on Social Media.
( UK GDPR )
Moderators should also ensure that nothing is used for bullying.
âSo if you say that the content of your online service is suitable for children within a certain age range then you need to have systems to ensure that it is. If you say that you do not tolerate bullying, then you need to have adequate mechanisms to swiftly and effectively deal with bullying incidents.â ( link )
We all have a responsibility to try and ensure âniceâ communications on this forum. Sometimes, however, ideas are suggested that havenât really been thought through, and it helps to be able to âexpress a degree of incredulityâ as this earlier linked page puts it. Sometimes thatâs a better approach than trying to use text to do the same thing - the text might come across as saying âyouâre an idiotâ when that isnât really what its meant.
However:
The idea that adding a lighthearted reaction emoji to a limited list could have âlegal implicationsâ is just silly. As described in detail above many (most?) systems that support emojis support any emoji. What are we going to do next, ban keyboards?
Iâm not a lawyer, but do have some familiarity with what organisations have had to do to comply by those rules. There may well be work to do within OSM, but I doubt if it would affect or be affected by the provision of an extra emoji in the Discourse instance here.
Forget the popcorn, I hereby request the 
emoji, for when a discussion jumps the shark. Note that I have never seen the comedy routine that cemented this phrase in American pop culture, for it was well before my time, yet I am not in the least offended by my youth and innocence.
I gave the OP , not because I think the proposal is going to damage OSM, but because I canât believe we are spending any time at all discussing this - the whole discussion, for and against, seems silly. OSM flourished without , and whether or not it continues to flourish probably has nothing to do with whether we use
I donât buy any of the cultural difference arguments. It is not like some hate group uses to represent their organization. On the other hand, to me means âlight hearted entertainmentâ, something someone might respond with to a post where someone announces they made a fun little game using OSM, which it seems is not exactly what it means.
We have bigger 
to fry (sorry, probably a cultural specific idiom). At this point, just do it - it is easy to undo.
!
well done! It seems weâve completely blurred the line between serious responses and world-class trolling at this point. I canât even tell the difference anymore.
So, we are now equating the emoji reaction to violent crime? Perhaps you should check the Geneva Conventions to see if is allowed to be used against lawful enemy combatants? I am now wondering if we should send the Red Cross into this threadâŠ
Yes, thatâs literally the job of moderators. Hopefully you do that in the Hungarian forum. Iâm sure we will all soon hear about how adding a emoji makes moderators unable to police bullying.
Oh, itâs objectively silly, and since I live my life based on the rules of improv comedy, I feel compelled to do my part in ensuring that the hilarity continues to ensue. I started this thread after lamenting that I couldnât -react to another thread. I expected maybe a few polite chuckles at most and similarly canât believe weâre still discussing it.
If we are looking for the best emoji to express âa degree of incredulityâ, the 
âraised eyebrowsâ emoji would be more suitable, wouldnât it?
The popcorn emoji tends to imply anticipation or enjoyment of drama, rather than expressing skepticism or incredulity.
( What does it mean to "raise eyebrows"? | Britannica Dictionary )
We should find our own OSM-themed emoji that more culturally neutrally expresses disagreement and âexpresses a degree of incredulityâ, like something that suggests âinstead of arguing, letâs go mappingâ
Thank you for your response.
In that case, I accept that there are no legal consequences to consider.
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#Cohesiveness_and_group_membership
"According to Rutkowski et al., the social responsibility norm affects helping behavior. The norm of social responsibility states that âpeople should help others who are in need of help and who are dependent on them for it.â As suggested by the research, the more cohesive a group, the more likely the group will act in accordance to the social responsibility norm. "
And under the âsocial responsibility normâ, fostering a more cohesive group is one of the prerequisites for diversity and inclusion.
Yes! Letâs get this positive sentiment added!
Lol, no. Just no. Please stop spamming us with long boring links. I would rather you just say what youâre trying to tell us, and summarize it in a few sentences, versus trying to send us on some academic exercise.
