This is why I stopped using emoji 5 years and never looked back. It's a really stupidly designed system if you need operating system updates just to read text! I won't participate in that insanity anymore.
Emoji have become trite, lazy, and practically meaningless, especially a few such as "face with tears of joy", "rolling on the floor laughing face", and "fire". Emoticons used to be a supplement for words, indicating the tone of the words, but now emoji are a replacement for words, the ultimate illiteracy.
The reductio ad absurdum is the recent Canadian legal case where the court determined that a "thumbs up" emoji signals a binding contract.
> People have been using things like "lol" and "lmao" since long before Unicode even existed
Sure, but how are emojis superior to this? Text is universally compatible, whereas emoji introduce compatibility and versioning issues across browsers and operating systems.
Besides the technical universality of text, it's also demographically universal. We've replaced "lol" with laughing-face-of-specific-skin-color-and-hair-style-and-gender-and-,etc., which is a worse situation than the original.
Of course "lol" is English-specific, but if you can't read another language, then what exactly would you be laughing at anyway? Different languages are always a barrier to communication, regardless of whether emoji are used.
> Text is universally compatible, whereas emoji introduce compatibility and versioning issues across browsers and operating systems.
To be specific, they introduce a lot more of such issues, but such issues were already there with plain text as well. Fonts that don't support some characters, fonts where some characters are displayed incorrectly (the whole CJK unification fiasco), fonts where some characters are not distinguished (I've run into the is-this-an-I-or-an-l issue quite a few times, personally).
> The reductio ad absurdum is the recent Canadian legal case where the court determined that a "thumbs up" emoji signals a binding contract.
Why do you believe so?
If "Looks good," "Ok," and "Yup" signal a binding contract, as detailed in the case you're talking about, I contend it's perfectly reasonable for :thumbsup: to also signal a binding contract between the same parties. [0]
Consider:
> 5. For instance, on July 14, 2020, after discussing and agreeing on a contract with Chris Achter, I prepared a contract for the sale of 185 metric tons [sic] of durum wheat from Achter Ltd. to SWT for a price of $312.31 per ton [sic]. I signed the contract and then took a photo of it using my cell phone and sent it to Chris at 306-264-7664. I messaged: “Please confirm terms of durum contract.” Chris texted me back: “Looks good”. At the time, I understood this to be that Chris was agreeing to the contract and this was his way of signally [sic] that agreement. Achter Ltd. delivered on this contract without issue. A copy of the contract and text message is attached as Exhibit “B”.
> 6. On September 11, 2020, after discussing and agreeing on a contract with Chris Acter [sic], I prepared a contract for the sale of 131 metric tons [sic] of durum wheat from Achter Ltd. to SWT for a price of $284.77 per ton [sic]. I signed the contract and then took a photo of it using my cell phone and sent it to Chris at 306-264-7664. I messaged: “Please confirm terms of durum contract”. Chris texted me back: “Ok”. At that time, I understood this to be that Chris was agreeing to the contract and this was his way of signally [sic] that agreement. Achter Ltd. delivered on this contract without issue. A copy of the contract and the text messages is attached as Exhibit “C”.
> 7. On October 21, 2020, after discussing and agreeing on a contract with Chris Acter [sic], I prepared a contract for the sale of 395 metric tons [sic] of durum wheat from Achter Ltd. to SWT for a price of $308.65 per ton [sic]. I signed the contract and then took a photo of it using my cell phone and sent it to Chris at 306-264-7664. I messaged: “Please confirm terms of durum contract”. Chris texted me back: “Yup”. At that time, I understood this to be that Chris was agreeing to the contract and this was his way of signally [sic] that agreement. Achter Ltd. delivered on this contract without issue. A copy of the contract and the text messages is attached as Exhibit “D”.
> If "Looks good," "Ok," and "Yup" signal a binding contract, as detailed in the case you're talking about, I contend it's perfectly reasonable for :thumbsup: to also signal a binding contract between the same parties.
I wasn't criticizing the decision in the case. I'm neither a lawyer nor a Canadian and have no opinion about that.
I was criticizing the entire situation, the absurdity of emoji becoming a matter of legal controversy.
Why is the sequence of bytes representing 是的 (Shì de - yes), valid human symbolic language, but the sequence of bytes representing thumbs up "absurd" language? Nowhere in the Rules of Human Language, Volume 12023, does it say "language must comprise a fixed set of symbols that is locked in time".
This is not about gradual language evolution in general. It's about the specific stupidity of emoji, as I already explained:
> Emoji have become trite, lazy, and practically meaningless, especially a few such as "face with tears of joy", "rolling on the floor laughing face", and "fire". Emoticons used to be a supplement for words, indicating the tone of the words, but now emoji are a replacement for words, the ultimate illiteracy.
Also, even worse, emoji are "evolving" so damn fast and continually that they appear as broken boxes if you're not running the very latest browser or operating system version.
Emoji have become trite, lazy, and practically meaningless, especially a few such as "face with tears of joy", "rolling on the floor laughing face", and "fire". Emoticons used to be a supplement for words, indicating the tone of the words, but now emoji are a replacement for words, the ultimate illiteracy.
The reductio ad absurdum is the recent Canadian legal case where the court determined that a "thumbs up" emoji signals a binding contract.