[lapcat]

> 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.

[kortex]

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".

[lapcat]

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.