At some point you'll just have to accept that not everyone has the exact same tastes as you. Initially it was "don't force ligatures on me I want to be left alone", now it's "other people are forbidden from using ligatures because I might be forced to gasp glance at one in a video". Grow up!
A paragraph from a draft I wrote a couple of years ago (which I should probably finish off and publish):
> Here’s a concrete example of the mess that it is: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSgIEDMekSg&t=157>. He says, “so we can write an if statement, so we can say ‘if want is not equal to got’”, with the character `!` briefly visible on screen, then a ≠. Fortunately he was aware enough to put text over the video “I’m using the ‘Fira Code’ font, which shows ‘!=’ in this neat way. Try it!”, so the beginner (since this is designed for beginners) at least gets some hint—but I bet that more than a few will forget and find it difficult to figure out what it is again, and anyone that’s skimming may just miss that part altogether.
In education material in particular, coding ligatures are emphatically not OK. How on earth is the user supposed to figure out that that wide ≠ is actually typed !=? So you’re putting a stumbling-block in their path.
Fun fact: the King James Version of the Bible uses “:)” 37 times (e.g. Matthew 24:15) and “;)” 53 times (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:31).
I’ve had auto-emojification of character sequences like :) cause problems on more than one occasion, e.g. in things like copying logs and getting them mangled. I strongly oppose those sorts of transformations being applied willy-nilly. Converting :) into U+1F642 or similar at authoring time is OK, so long as I can turn it off, but doing it blindly causes enough problems and helps little enough that it just shouldn’t be done any more, not when most devices have ready access to actual emoji input.
