Is it similar to the way you Americans can't seem to generate an extra "u" in words like "colour"? :-D
Actually, I favour the British spellings. Particularly the -ise ending over -ize (realise vs realize). I blame the reading choices of my youth for influencing me this way.
Seriously, though, "facade" and "naive" aren't really unfamiliarity with extended characters, so much as modern English spelling, and we don't have the cedilla or "ß" in use anyway -- not that the second character really matters, since straße is not used in English anyway!
This is still Anglicisation however. I'm a linguistic stickler, and I believe character approximates don't do justice to the word when there are characters that represent the word properly (and which belong there due to the word's etymology). For example, most Americans now write jalapeño (the pepper) as jalapeno, with the consequence that the pronunciation is shifting with the spelling. The ñ is losing it's "ny" dipthong sound and turning into a plain "n", and in the process mutating the e that comes before it as well - "painyo" becoming "peeno".
I understand that this is how borrow words work, and I'm not railing against that per se
. But I maintain that the fact that one has to go out of their way on an English keyboard to enter a ñ or ç or ï is a large part of why these "26 character ASCII" spellings are becoming prominent. Even the British æ (encyclopædia) is suffering, turning into a regular "ae" letter pair instead (and becoming a plain "e" in the American spellings).
You can probably tell that I'm someone who actually laments the loss of the thorn and edh
, among other characters. I prefer those languages where every letter has one sound, it resolves much ambiguity. :)