It should always be taken with a grain of salt; I guess you can make sweeping statements like "positive/negative tone", but you should be careful attributing exact meanings to it. I mean to some, an eggplant is an eggplant, to others it's a penis. There will be community specific meanings attributed to certain emoji, often unspoken or even unaware.
Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently
31–40 of 71 posts
Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 availabl…
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.
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.
Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
If you expect your message to be subpoenaed and interpreted by a jury, the former is vastly preferable, unless you want ambiguity.
Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
You could literally replace that emoji with the well known phrase "wink, wink." It is well understood and avoids the ambiguity of emoji.
Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 indica…
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…
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.
Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anyone who conducts a business conversation over any medium but snail mail, fax, email or the phone deserves whatever misfortune befalls them. That's going against progress, just like some people were against electronic communication for business transactions when they were first introduced. I understand where you are coming from, texts are familiar, but more and more business run solely on messaging platforms and…
And progress for the sake of progress isn't necessarily a good thing. I've seen people fire off the first thing that comes to mind in a text message in a business setting and almost always realize they weren't as precise as they wanted to be and have to attempt to correct themselves with follow on messages. This mistake and ensuing retraction almost always sours the deal. Edit: addendum (I'm aware I'm doing exactly w…
How is the phone any less immediate that text messages? If anything, it's even more - you don't even need to press "send".
Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 indica…
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…
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.
Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's one very popular emoji I particularly hate: https://emojipedia.org/face-with-tears-of-joy/ . Why? Because a) it looks bad (one of the worst made emojis out there), and b) when someone sends it to me, I have no clue what they mean. While it's technically "crying with joy", it also resembles crying with despair - and with regular people, who don't even know what "emoji" is or that they have names, I can't be 10…
"The political purpose of Newspeak is to eliminate ambiguity and nuance (shades of meaning) from the language, and so reduce the language to simple concepts—pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness ..."
What a weird response to a post describing how ambiguous emojies can be.
Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
And progress for the sake of progress isn't necessarily a good thing. I've seen people fire off the first thing that comes to mind in a text message in a business setting and almost always realize they weren't as precise as they wanted to be and have to attempt to correct themselves with follow on messages. This mistake and ensuing retraction almost always sours the deal. Edit: addendum (I'm aware I'm doing exactly w…
How is the phone any less immediate that text messages? If anything, it's even more - you don't even need to press "send".
A phone conversation is understood to be free flowing. It's easier for us as humans to understand that someone is reasoning out a line of logic in real time over the phone. By contrast, a text is not real time, and should therefore be thought out before sending.
Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently
#40It should always be taken with a grain of salt; I guess you can make sweeping statements like "positive/negative tone", but you should be careful attributing exact meanings to it. I mean to some, an eggplant is an eggplant, to others it's a penis. There will be community specific meanings attributed to certain emoji, often unspoken or even unaware.
Just like with words, or colors, or mostly any kind of element of communication.