[stouset]

Emoji (and their predecessor, emoticons) are IMO the greatest new feature for written language that has happened in generations. Eschewing them is certainly a choice you can make, but I personally think it's a poor one.

Authors can now bundle emotional sentiment in text communication. Not being able to do this in the past was usually just an annoyance but could occasionally turn out to be extremely problematic. Countless miscommunications have occurred due to recipients not correctly interpreting an author's tone, and we now have a tool that can help reduce or potentially eliminate those misunderstandings. It's early days, so we're still seeing teething issues: different emoji sets conveying subtly different cues and evolving social norms around their use. But they have incredible potential.

[frollogaston]

We already had that ;)

Again emoji 1.0 was good. You can convey what you need with a small subset of that even. But even if modern computers were limited to emoji 1.0, I suspect they'd have been equally spammed to the point of losing meaning anyway.

[3eb7988a1663]

However, the lack of standardization between platforms causes its own miscommunication. Some of the icons between Apple and Google can be interpreted in significantly different ways.

There is also the pistol[0] which depending on the platform is a water gun or revolver.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_emoji

[stouset]

I explicitly called out different emoji sets conveying subtly different meanings.

[frollogaston]

Well Apple emojis are de facto standard, the rest follow. Even the stupid water gun.

[mannykannot]

If only Keats or Plath had emoji!

[stouset]

People surely thought a similar sentiment about spaces between words and punctuation.

[mannykannot]

Anyone claiming those developments enabled the expression of something previously inexpressible would have been mistaken.

[hollerith]

And yet you are here, a site completely devoid of emoji.

[stouset]

Because the social norms of this place currently discourage it.

I also don’t use contractions in formal writing settings. Does that make them bad?

[hollerith]

I think the site owner actively filters them out and has been doing so ever since you joined this site in 2011.

But no matter the reason for the complete lack of emoji, the fact that you like this site enough to participate here is evidence that emoji don't actually improve public discussion as much as you think they would.

There are many many sites on which you could have chosen to participate where emoji are common and can be used freely.

[stouset]

You choose to participate here instead of having face-to-face conversations. Does that mean that face-to-face discussions aren't useful? I walk on sidewalks where cars are prohibited. Does that mean that cars aren't useful? I drive on highways where pedestrians are prohibited. Does that mean walking isn't useful?

Whatever point you're trying to make, this is an extremely ineffective argument for it. You’re in “checkmate, atheists” territory here.

[mannykannot]

> You choose to participate here instead of having face-to-face conversations.

Nothing about the comment you are replying to implies an abstinence from face-to-face conversations, and the suggestion is not very plausible.

[frollogaston]

Isn't there a comic about this kind of argument? I don't think emojis add anything, but lack of emojis on HN doesn't say anything about that, other than the creator probably doesn't like them either.