4 ms·

Emoji are modern hieroglyphs. It's just an additional means of conveying meaning. > font designers now have control over the way I get to express my emotions

Emoji are modern hieroglyphs. It's just an additional means of conveying meaning. > font designers now have control over the way I get to express my emotions This could have been a major issue, but media platforms recognized it and have provided their own pictograms for years, mostly compatible with each other.

LocalH 6y ago
They have a valid point, however. What is now widely considered to be a "water gun" emoji started out as an actual gun, but Apple decided at one point that they were going to be "progressive" and changed it to a water gun. To me, this upends the entire idea of emoji having a stable definition.
- ajconway 6y ago
  Words don't have stable definitions either. My point was that there is nothing special about emojis any more than there is about Chinese characters or Egyptian hieroglyphs.
  - codethief 6y ago
    Sure, but in the case of words, both sender and recipient at least agree about the content of the message, even if their interpretation is different. In the case of emojis, both the sender's and the recipient's software agree on the message content but the actual persons no longer do because the content is suddenly being displayed very differently.
- c22 6y ago
  It's fascinating to me that they did this with the pistol, but :knife:, :bomb:, :dagger:, :crossed_swords:, :bow_and_arrow:, et al all look as threatening as ever.
  - frosted-flakes 6y ago
    But those weapons don't have the same highly political negative associations as guns do. Knives are tools more than weapons; bombs can kill a lot of people (see the 2013 Boston Marathon attack or IEDs in Afghanistan), but their typical stylization is also very cartoonish and there isn't an NRA for bombs; swords are archaic and mostly shown as medieval or pirate weapons; and bows and arrows as weapons are also archaic, and they're only used today for hunting.

LocalH 6y ago

They have a valid point, however. What is now widely considered to be a "water gun" emoji started out as an actual gun, but Apple decided at one point that they were going to be "progressive" and changed it to a water gun. To me, this upends the entire idea of emoji having a stable definition.

ajconway 6y ago
Words don't have stable definitions either. My point was that there is nothing special about emojis any more than there is about Chinese characters or Egyptian hieroglyphs.
- codethief 6y ago
  Sure, but in the case of words, both sender and recipient at least agree about the content of the message, even if their interpretation is different. In the case of emojis, both the sender's and the recipient's software agree on the message content but the actual persons no longer do because the content is suddenly being displayed very differently.
c22 6y ago
It's fascinating to me that they did this with the pistol, but :knife:, :bomb:, :dagger:, :crossed_swords:, :bow_and_arrow:, et al all look as threatening as ever.
- frosted-flakes 6y ago
  But those weapons don't have the same highly political negative associations as guns do. Knives are tools more than weapons; bombs can kill a lot of people (see the 2013 Boston Marathon attack or IEDs in Afghanistan), but their typical stylization is also very cartoonish and there isn't an NRA for bombs; swords are archaic and mostly shown as medieval or pirate weapons; and bows and arrows as weapons are also archaic, and they're only used today for hunting.