Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently

#51

Post by theelous3 »

nulbyte wrote: post #34
tuesdayrain wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But then you look like an idiot, which is the opposite of the purpose.

I can scarcely imagine a faster way to look socially inept in text, than writing out so explicitly what are supposed to be nuanced and subtle actions. Eye roll.

Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently

#52

Post by dragonwriter »

huffmsa wrote: post #28
adriand wrote: post #26

Earlier 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…

> But the context here are conversation which appear in the court records. So they're either breaches of a civil agreement, or criminal law.

No, the fact that she conversation appears in a court record does not mean it was involved in a violation of any law (and you probably meant civil or criminal law; not all civil cases involve even alleged violations of agreememts—contracts isn't the whole civil law universe.)

Courts may exist to determine if a violation of law occurred, but sometimes the answer is “no”. (And even if it is yes, the specific conversation at issue may not have.)

> 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.

Sure, if that's a major concern, but I doubt that it reasonably is for the sender in most communication that actually ends up in court.

Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently

#53

Post by huffmsa »

dragonwriter wrote: post #52
huffmsa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But the context here are conversation which appear in the court records. So they're either breaches of a civil agreement, or criminal law. No, the fact that she conversation appears in a court record does not mean it was involved in a violation of any law (and you probably meant civil or criminal law; not all civil cases involve even alleged violations of agreememts—contracts isn't the whole civil law universe.) Co…

No I meant civil agreements, specifically because those are the civil cases the article mentions emojis in the context of court records.

Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently

#54

Post by lewisflude »

huffmsa wrote: post #30
lewisflude wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this might sound stupid, but I really find that softening the boundaries/traditional barriers between work/home really helps improve my quality of life. I like feeling slightly relaxed at work, and I feel like I'm way more productive than in an environment that feels cold, corporate or artificial. Having said this, I think that it's really important to listen to the cultural signals that arise from your work e…

I mentioned it elsewhere, but I'm far and away the heaviest giphy user in my slack groups for internal conversation with teammates I'm comfortable and familiar with. But any external conversations or conversations where money is on the table, emojis and gifs are too ambiguous.

Talking to someone you don't know, it's definitely better to err on the side of simplicity. I wouldn't use gifs/emojis unless I'd had some indication the person I'm talking to would be receptive to it!

Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently

#55

Post by jerf »

huffmsa wrote: post #23
ddeokbokki wrote: post #17

Earlier 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.

To the entire thread below this, to understand what people around you are doing, you need to understand that there are elements of human communication in which people are deliberately ambiguous. (Not always conciously, but quite deliberately.) It's a huge element of all of the standard human courtship rituals (all the real ones, not the ones that people claim to be using), it's used to speak in plausibly deniable ways for everything ranging from crimes to minor social incidents. The ambiguity itself is part of the message being sent.

Most people actually are very precise in their texts and speech. It's just that the message-carrying layer isn't in the denotations or even the connotation, but the way in which connotations are used. (Humans are amazing things at times.)

(I'm practicing. I have two high-functioning still-pre-teen autist children that I fully expect to have to convey to them an explicit model of human social interactions as they get older. I'm already having to start; the younger really, really wants to be funny. We're actually making some progress. Not, I mean, necessarily a lot of progress... but there is some progress. I'm not saying everyone below is autistic; I have no ability to judge that from here. I'm saying I need practice trying to explain this stuff because I personally definitely do have some autists in my life who will have this problem in the future.)

Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently

#56

Post by sandworm101 »

cookieswumchorr wrote: post #45
anoncake wrote: post #24

> Despite the potential for emoji to be interpreted in a wide array of ways, emoji experts don’t really exist. “Emoji usually have dialects. They draw meaning from their context. You could absolutely talk about emoji as a phenomenon, but as for what a particular emoji means, you probably wouldn’t go to a linguist. You would probably go to someone who’s familiar with that community, just like they did with the sex tra…

emojis are not something strictly defined. They vary across messaging platforms and clients, or versions of clients. Sometimes it means that the person sending them sees a different image then the recepient, which also can lead do different interpretation

I'm reminded of the UK PM, David Cameron, who signed many emails "LOL". He though it meant 'lots of love'.

Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently

#57

Post by jstanley »

ddeokbokki wrote: post #17
midgetjones wrote: post #15

Emoji have really filled a gap, where words typed on the internet were missing some context of how they are supposed to be read. And nowadays, whether or not I add the eggplant emoji to the end of a whatsapp message can really change how it's interpreted, and gives me less to excuse myself should it come up in court. But really, anything that removes doubt and clarity from a conversation has got to be a good thing. H…

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…

One problem with emojis is that they represent different graphics on different clients, which can subtly change the apparent meaning.

Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently

#58

Post by tremon »

nulbyte wrote: post #34
tuesdayrain wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not a native English speaker, but I associate the phrase "wink, wink" with lechery more than with flirting.

That said, I also don't usually associate the wink emoji with flirting, but more with tongue-in-cheek fun. Context matters I guess.

Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently

#59

Post by tremon »

amelius wrote: post #13
huffmsa wrote: post #11

> After sending an enthusiastic text confirming that they wanted the apartment, Anyone who sends little yellow men as part of a business conversation deserves whatever misfortune befalls them. Anyone who conducts a business conversation over any medium but snail mail, fax, email or the phone deserves whatever misfortune befalls them. I know this is old-fashioned, but business is business, personal is personal.

> I know this is old-fashioned, but business is business, personal is personal. People are mixing the personal domain and business all the time. For example: in business meetings, people smile and they tell jokes; also, business people often go out for dinner together.

Yet somehow, people don't write jokes into their contracts.

Re: Emoji are showing up as evidence in court more frequently

#60

Post by iamcurious »

jerf wrote: post #55
huffmsa wrote: post #23

Earlier 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.

To the entire thread below this, to understand what people around you are doing, you need to understand that there are elements of human communication in which people are deliberately ambiguous . (Not always conciously , but quite deliberately .) It's a huge element of all of the standard human courtship rituals (all the real ones, not the ones that people claim to be using), it's used to speak in plausibly deniable…

Hey Jerf, maybe this helps. A good recipe for laughter, is to mix a danger signal with a safety signal. The signals might be physical, like almost falling or tickles. The signals might be grammatical, puns (mistaking one word for another). The signals might be social, things that almost can't be said. I'm sure you can think of examples.

Now, always send safety signals ahead, first build trust and pay attention to how others perceive danger. Make a hypothesis of what signals would work, and test them. Laughter is a great teacher.

Post reply on HN