RCS Protocols and Emoji Wars: Why Plain Text Fails and Google/Apple Control the Tone
Reliable emoji replies in SMS depend on proprietary protocols like RCS, creating an ownership choke point involving Google, Apple, and carriers. Technical struggles persist, with issues noted on platforms like e/OS lacking core support for modern messaging features.
The argument over emojis splits hard: some users, like early_riser, argue overuse strips writing of 'gravitas,' suggesting they are punctuation meant for sparing use. Conversely, others claim emojis are essential tone indicators, arguing usage relies purely on context, culture, and the relationship between speakers, as PonyOfWar notes regarding regional slang.
The weight of opinion suggests emoji use is a highly volatile social signal, useful for tone but dangerous in serious contexts. Technically, the hurdle is proprietary infrastructure; conversationally, the fault lines exist between those who see emojis as immature clutter and those who see them as necessary linguistic tools.
Key Points
Emoji overuse diminishes the seriousness of written communication.
early_riser argued emojis should be used sparingly, akin to punctuation, or they lose all gravity.
Emoji meaning is fluid, depending entirely on cultural context.
PonyOfWar emphasized that regional semantics alter a symbol's meaning, citing different interpretations of 馃槈.
Basic functionality relies on corporate messaging gatekeepers.
Neptr pointed out that sending emoji responses requires the proprietary RCS protocol controlled by Google, Apple, and carriers.
Emojis are dictated by the relationship between communicants.
Voidian stated emoji appropriateness depends entirely on the recipient and the desired 'positive impression.'
Emojis serve functional roles beyond mere emotion.
otp reported using emojis alongside ANSI color sequences to improve code and script readability.
Source Discussions (3)
This report was synthesized from the following Lemmy discussions, ranked by community score.