[ddeokbokki]

People will argue that you should be able to convey your message clearly in plain English but those people don't realise that: - Not everyone masters English (even when it's your mother tongue, not everyone has access to the same education to be able to use it perfectly) - Languages are complex, we don't talk with words only, we use facial expressions and gestures, emojis help mimic those when only words are available.

[jstanley]

One problem with emojis is that they represent different graphics on different clients, which can subtly change the apparent meaning.

[Wowfunhappy]

Yeah. The gun emoji being a water gun on Apple platforms is a prime example of this—I'm almost surprised there hasn't been a news story yet where a playful "Bring your :gun: to school tomorrow for water day" was badly misinterpreted due to platform differences.

[argos]

This reminded me of an issue with emoji in slack... then you type ":)" slack changes it to the emoji, but when you hover over it you see ":slightly_smiling_face:"... the first time I saw this I thought that the message was passive aggressive... it was later that I realize that slack does the change automatically

[astrobe_]

People will also argue that people have used written communication and done without eggplants and whatnot for centuries -- even though it would have been even easier to do so with pen and paper (i.e. free drawing in hand-written letters).

Other people would argue that Emojis are an illusion of communication. People right here are commenting that the difference in their graphic representation on different platforms sometimes change their meaning!?

I would argue that we didn't need anything beyond (basic) ASCII smiley. The rest are toys, not communication devices. When you have dozens of them you need some sort of dictionary, and at this point I suggest you should learn Chinese instead, if you like to write with symbols that much.

[huffmsa]

If you have the time to consider what you're going to say, like in written communication, then yes, you should be able to do it with just words. Take your time, figure out what you want to say.

[adriand]

Most emoji could likely be replaced with, "And when I say that, I mean it in an X way", where X equals "humourous", "joking", "angry", "flirtatious", etc. Which would be incredibly tedious.

Consider that when you read something with dialogue, e.g. a novel, the author will frequently utilize descriptive words to indicate the tone of the dialogue. E.g. '"You're not going anywhere," he snarled.' As such, a way to indicate tone using just words exists - it's just clumsy to do that for your own statements.

[huffmsa]

But the context here are conversation which appear in the court records. So they're either breaches of a civil agreement, or criminal law.

By all means use them in your day to day conversations, but if you expect your messages to ever require interpretation in a court of law, and you don't want a jury to decide what you meant by eggplant, kissy face, don't use emoji.

Or, conversely, if you want to be ambiguous, like say you're a pimp communicating to his prostitutes, emoji usage might work in your favor.

[dragonwriter]

> But the context here are conversation which appear in the court records. So they're either breaches of a civil agreement, or criminal law.

No, the fact that she conversation appears in a court record does not mean it was involved in a violation of any law (and you probably meant civil or criminal law; not all civil cases involve even alleged violations of agreememts—contracts isn't the whole civil law universe.)

Courts may exist to determine if a violation of law occurred, but sometimes the answer is “no”. (And even if it is yes, the specific conversation at issue may not have.)

> By all means use them in your day to day conversations, but if you expect your messages to ever require interpretation in a court of law, and you don't want a jury to decide what you meant by eggplant, kissy face, don't use emoji.

Sure, if that's a major concern, but I doubt that it reasonably is for the sender in most communication that actually ends up in court.

[huffmsa]

No I meant civil agreements, specifically because those are the civil cases the article mentions emojis in the context of court records.

[ipython]

And how do you determine ahead of time with 100% certainty that your communication will not be subject to subpoena and appear in court record?

In a divorce proceeding for example many so called “day to day” conversations will suddenly be open to legal interpretation.

[huffmsa]

Yeah divorce is a sticky situation. And there's no way to be 100% certain. But if a contract or other agreement involving money is the topic of discussion, it's safe to assume that it might be used as evidence.

[icebraining]

I don't think the couple in Israel looking for an apartment ever expected their messages to require interpretation in a court of law. Sure, writing contracts with emojies is probably ill-advised, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

[huffmsa]

They probably didn't, and I know I come from position of legal awareness, bordering on paranoia, but I would never communicate with a potential landlord over anything but phone and email.

And I suspect the Israeli couple didn't think texts were serious, like an email would be. But the court decided otherwise.

[tuesdayrain]

Somehow I'm not convinced that it's better to convey my message by writing "I am flirting with you" rather than by just adding a winking or smiling emoji.

[nulbyte]

You could literally replace that emoji with the well known phrase "wink, wink." It is well understood and avoids the ambiguity of emoji.

[theelous3]

But then you look like an idiot, which is the opposite of the purpose.

I can scarcely imagine a faster way to look socially inept in text, than writing out so explicitly what are supposed to be nuanced and subtle actions. Eye roll.

[tremon]

I'm not a native English speaker, but I associate the phrase "wink, wink" with lechery more than with flirting.

That said, I also don't usually associate the wink emoji with flirting, but more with tongue-in-cheek fun. Context matters I guess.

[reificator]

https://youtu.be/4Kwh3R0YjuQ

[icebraining]

There are places beyond the English-speaking world. As far as I know, there's no equivalent to "wink, wink" in my native language.

[huffmsa]

What language?

[icebraining]

Portuguese.

[huffmsa]

If you expect your message to be subpoenaed and interpreted by a jury, the former is vastly preferable, unless you want ambiguity.

[jerf]

To the entire thread below this, to understand what people around you are doing, you need to understand that there are elements of human communication in which people are deliberately ambiguous. (Not always conciously, but quite deliberately.) It's a huge element of all of the standard human courtship rituals (all the real ones, not the ones that people claim to be using), it's used to speak in plausibly deniable ways for everything ranging from crimes to minor social incidents. The ambiguity itself is part of the message being sent.

Most people actually are very precise in their texts and speech. It's just that the message-carrying layer isn't in the denotations or even the connotation, but the way in which connotations are used. (Humans are amazing things at times.)

(I'm practicing. I have two high-functioning still-pre-teen autist children that I fully expect to have to convey to them an explicit model of human social interactions as they get older. I'm already having to start; the younger really, really wants to be funny. We're actually making some progress. Not, I mean, necessarily a lot of progress... but there is some progress. I'm not saying everyone below is autistic; I have no ability to judge that from here. I'm saying I need practice trying to explain this stuff because I personally definitely do have some autists in my life who will have this problem in the future.)

[iamcurious]

Hey Jerf, maybe this helps. A good recipe for laughter, is to mix a danger signal with a safety signal. The signals might be physical, like almost falling or tickles. The signals might be grammatical, puns (mistaking one word for another). The signals might be social, things that almost can't be said. I'm sure you can think of examples.

Now, always send safety signals ahead, first build trust and pay attention to how others perceive danger. Make a hypothesis of what signals would work, and test them. Laughter is a great teacher.

[jerf]

That is good, thanks.

I wonder if there is a pre-existing manual for this sort of thing already published? A quick Amazon search didn't produce anything I was looking for.

[iamcurious]

Well, there are guides, but none good enough that I remember. More generally, not specifically about humor, but about that kind of vision of human nature, read The Naked Ape.