It seems to me that as long as emoji is kept out of serious and mass communications, the variability and imprecision of emoji is no big deal. We engage in impre

It seems to me that as long as emoji is kept out of serious and mass communications, the variability and imprecision of emoji is no big deal. We engage in imprecise expressions all the time like "urgh", "ew", "yay", and rely on more precise words to clarify the message when the situation calls for it. At the moment, emoji seems to be used in the same class as those imprecise interjections, and I don't see it acquiring technical, precise use anytime soon, given how unwieldy it is to use compared to the 26 characters. So just as a ballet dance, or a particular performance of it, isn't the right medium for world leaders to express international political sentiment, similarly, emoji should not be expected to convey any precise sentiment in critical situations. The author says as much: >If emoji are to become adequate vehicles for discussing public health, the legal system, and art, their depictions need to be molded by users rather than a handful of software companies. I don't think anybody is seriously considering the use of emoji in the way in its current mode of usage for communication when precision is needed. In the first place, there is no standard pronunciation of emoji characters, which in itself is sufficent to make their use in formal documents an iffy suggestion. Arguably, if we ever standardize a reading/interpretation of emoji, the concern raised by the author becomes rendered moot and the choice of graphic representation becomes a stylistic one. When we consider the current imprecise nature of emoji, message corruption due to companies somewhat altering the precise meaning of the emoji become much less significant.