Have emojis changed the world?

Emojis are a response to real world events

Question: Have emojis changed the world?
Position‹2 of 4›: No, the impact of emojis is exaggerated.
Argument‹4 of 5›: Emojis are a response to real world events

Emojis are created as a response to real world trends and events

The argument

Emojis are introduced based on their relevance to global populations. They are therefore entirely context-dependent, and intended to reflect the world we live in, rather than to influence or lead it. For example, in 2015, the Unicode Consortium shifted away from the homogenous 'white-washed' yellow skin tone. The group introduced an additional five 'skin' shades to diversify the range, and be more racially inclusive to users. This was a response to growing movements for action against racism (and other forms of discrimination) within tech.

Context

New emojis are introduced into Unicode every year. These are decided by the Unicode Consortium, which selects new images based on relevance to a global audience.

Premises

[P1]Emojis are introduced based on their relevance to global populations, making them context-dependent. [P2] For example, the 2015 addition of diverse skin tones responded to movements against racism in tech. [P3] Emojis thus reflect the world we live in rather than influencing or leading it. [C] Therefore, since emojis merely respond to real-world events, their impact is exaggerated.

Counter-arguments

Emojis may reflect trends in attitudes, but in popularising these they serve a much broader purpose. They popularise and spread these changing cultural attitudes by virtue of being so widely used.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Emoji selection is based on far more than world events. For example, it is also based on data around use of existing emojis and how people are using them.