The Emoji Conundrum: Should the Unicode Consortium Endlessly Add New Symbols?

As the popularity of emojis continues to soar, the Unicode Consortium faces a pivotal question: at what point should they stop adding new emojis to the Unicode standard? With each passing year, the number of emojis grows, leading some to view this proliferation as a looming disaster. In this article, we explore the implications of this trend, its cultural and technical ramifications, and whether the time has come to reconsider the Unicode Consortium's approach.

The Rising Dominance of Emojis in Unicode

At present, the Unicode Consortium has allocated effectively an unlimited number of code points for emojis. This means that the potential for adding more and more symbols is virtually limitless. Currently, there are over 3,000 emojis, and this number continues to grow without bounds.

The proliferation of emojis is not without its drawbacks. Software and hardware manufacturers now have to allocate resources to support and update for an endless flood of new symbols and their meanings. Moreover, due to the whimsical and often cultural nature of emoji creation, many new symbols may become outdated or even offensive within a short period.

The Fantasy and Reality of Emoji Cultural Context

One of the key arguments against the ongoing addition of new emojis is the lack of consistency in cultural meanings. Hand gestures, for example, like the thumbs-up sign, can be innocuous and humorous in one culture but offensive in another. Similarly, an emoji portraying a person in a white flowing garment tied at the top, reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), could be appropriated by this controversial group, leading to a shift in the emoji's meaning and context.

Consider the example of a poop emoji. If not carefully described, it might be mistaken for a chocolate sundae. In many images, emojis of people are depicted with yellow skin tones, similar to those of The Simpsons. However, colors can also carry racial overtones, leading to ambiguity and potential misunderstandings.

The Unicode Consortium must also grapple with the delicate issue of racism and prejudice. A historical example is the infamous Marmalade brand, which used a gollywog symbol, later removed due to racial sensitivity concerns. If similar symbols were to become emojis, the potential for misuse would be considerable.

Regulating Emojis: A Case for Reevaluation

The addition of historical and cultural icons as emojis, such as the Black-White Minstrel Show (now renamed or possibly retracted), raises significant questions. In today's climate, such imagery would likely be unacceptable. If this iconic show had survived into the emoji era, it could have led to a new wave of controversy and misuse.

The growing use of emojis in various settings, including major religions and political movements, further complicates the situation. What if a small cult demands an emoji, or if someone wants to co-opt an existing emoji for a controversial cause, such as the MAGA movement? Determining the appropriate number of members required to elevate a group from a cult to a religion adds another layer of complexity.

The Unicode Consortium's role in these matters is extensive but not uncontroversial. They could easily find themselves in a difficult position for accepting emojis that could be misinterpreted or used for malicious purposes. Even if these interpretations were not intended at the time of creation, their meanings can evolve over time, leading to widespread misuse.

The Need for a Regulatory Framework

To address these concerns, some argue that the Unicode Consortium should establish a mechanism for revoking emojis and a complaints court for decisions on such revocations. However, finding a suitable body to oversee these decisions presents its own challenges. The pool of "Good" individuals willing to sit on such a court is finite, and the politicized nature of the internet could exacerbate tensions.

Another contentious issue arises with the preservation of Unicode's historical continuity. If a large number of emojis were to be banned, how would this affect the integrity and usefulness of the Unicode standard over time? The decisions made today could have far-reaching implications for future users and developers.

Finally, some suggest that the Unicode Consortium's control over emojis should be divested. Perhaps a new regulatory body, like a "UN Emoji Regulatory Commission," could be established. However, such an entity would likely face significant resistance and skepticism, especially from those who believe it would serve as a tool for oppressive control over online discourse.

The Unicode Consortium should seriously consider revisiting their approach to emoji inclusion. The current trend could lead to a disaster for the international standards they aim to uphold. By implementing a more disciplined and regulatory framework, they can ensure that emojis continue to serve their intended purpose while minimizing potential conflicts and misunderstandings.