Last month, Localization Lab hosted an online discussion on emojis and localization. The event, titled “Hanmoji & Emojis: A Conversation on Localization, representation, and Symbolism of emoji characters”, explored how emojis have evolved and developed as the language of digital communication, the challenges around localization and how to strive for diversity and inclusivity online.
Guest speakers and authors An Xiao Mina and Jason Li joined the meeting to present “The Hanmoji Handbook: Your Guide to the Chinese Language Through Emoji” and brought their unique perspectives on the need for better representation and diversity. They highlighted what they sought to do when they embarked on their journey to write the Hanmoji book which was to explore how language systems can be used to develop emojis that are relevant and representative of Chinese people. They also briefly discussed the inaccuracy in the representation of skin tones through emojis and how this form of expression and communication does not always adequately capture and reflect diversity.
Close to 30 participants joined the conversation from both the Localization Lab community of translators and the wider internet freedom and digital rights space. The topic sparked interest and debate among participants who also brought their perspectives on issues ranging from gatekeeping and standardization of emojis, the influence of big tech companies, interpretations, and how to be inclusive without oversimplifying diversity.
So before we get into the learnings that we gleaned from the discussion, it is important to establish what emojis are, where they come from, and how they are made available on our devices.
What is an emoji and how were emojis made available to devices the world over?
‘Emoji’ is the Japanese term for picture characters. These "picture characters" are standardized by the Unicode Consortium and built into handsets or mobile devices. Therefore, Emoji can roughly be translated into standardized icons with a meaning, with the keyword here being ‘standardized’.
Before the standardization of characters existed, there were hundreds of different encoding systems that were used on various computers and servers. This meant that text was not always represented in the same way. Unicode however, focused on standardizing these codes for language, so that the letters you typed in any language showed up accurately across platforms and across devices.
After noticing the popularity of emoji in Japan, and after much persuasion and lobbying by engineers working for Google and Apple, Unicode eventually decided to index emoji starting in 2010, “because of their use as characters for text-messaging in a number of Japanese manufacturers’ corporate standards.” This move by Unicode was the beginning of making emoji a legitimate form of communication.
But who is the Unicode Consortium?
The Unicode Consortium is a non-profit organization incorporated and based in Mountain View, California. Its primary purpose is to maintain and publish the Unicode Standard. The consortium’s purpose is to standardize, maintain, educate, and engage academic and scientific communities, and the general public about, make publicly available, promote, and disseminate to the public a standard character encoding system that is usable on any technology including XML, the Java programming language, Swift, and modern operating systems.
There are several consortium committees, including three technical committees and the editorial committee. A number of Unicode members and volunteers are active in organizing periodic Internationalization and Unicode Conferences, which an independent conference organizer conducts under license from the Unicode Consortium.
Membership History of the Unicode Consortium
The Unicode Consortium has a membership consisting of voting (full, institutional, or supporting) members and non-voting (associate) members. A quick look into the history of voting and non-voting membership shows that over the decades, the bulk of voting membership has always been big tech organizations. Organizations such as Adobe, Apple, Facebook, and Google Inc. have been featured on the list as voting members for the last 10-20 years.
From the above information about the Unicode Consortium, its voting membership, and its location, among other things, it's safe to assume that the standardization of emoji is from the developed world’s perspective, more specifically, the “Silicon Valley” perspective. A significant number of The Consortium’s lifetime and corporate and associate members are big tech companies that are mostly located in Silicon Valley as well (so much for representation huh?) It is, therefore, difficult to speak of standardization or the inclusive nature of emoji from the perspective of the makeup of the organization, the prohibitive membership fees, and the location of the organization.
So how do we begin to diversify that Global North perspective?
Given the optics around location, organizational and membership structures, one begins to question whether the conversation around inclusion and representation of emoji is impactful and in-depth enough to be one that includes the Global South at all. That is, the existing determining body does not seem to have enough people within its membership in terms of ethnicity, culture, and representation from across the globe for this to be the case (i.e. skin color is not representation, and neither are Simpson colored emojis).
Going back to the discussion, what participants deemed as the ideal situation would be a world where there is a truly universal language of emoji. However, from a more realistic point of view, having a more diverse group of organizations, collectives, and individuals being able to have a seat at the Unicode table and make decisions regarding which emoji make the cut. But for this to happen, the Unicode Consortium would have to ensure accessibility through the decentralization of its structures and the bringing down of its membership fees to enable more people to take part in the conversation from an even plane.
Another way that would go towards ensuring that inclusivity begins to become the reality rather than the ideal, would be to find ways and means to carry out research- around the inclusivity and diversity of emoji- that reaches all five continents. The Consortium already has the distinct advantage of having big tech companies as long-term members. Would it not be prudent to use their expertise to glean information that would better inform their work and help them better understand the varying nuances, cultures, norms, and values of the millions of existing cultures around the world? Possible, but better said than done. Here is why:
Big Tech vs. the end-users and gatekeeping- Who approves emoji, what are the required standards, and how are propositions submitted?
A couple of years ago, the mainstream perception of big tech was that they were these cool companies whose existence facilitates research, entertainment, information access, online shopping, and communication in real-time with anyone across the world. As a result, the power wielded by big-tech companies and their ability to make decisions for us and without our input in day-to-day life was initially a discussion we were all but willing to relegate to the back burner. However, as we deepen our understanding of the role big tech has in our lives, we have come to realize that the monopoly that big tech wields over public discourse has a far more wide-reaching impact on our everyday lives.
“It's true that the way we talk to each other and about the world has changed, both in form… and in kind, whether that's the rise of nonverbal elements in our written discourse (emojis, memes, ASCII art, and emoticons) or the kinds of online harassment and brigading campaigns that have grown with the Internet.” - Cory Doctorow, 2020
While we have been taking the fight to big tech regarding communication and privacy violations, that small but impactful group of companies has been influencing what will, and what will not become an emoji. How have they been doing this you ask? The Unicode Consortium is open to proposals from anyone in any part of the world, with successful proposals becoming emojis that are free for the public to use.
So what is the problem? Gatekeepers. “The subcommittee is dominated by tech giants who pay $18,000 a year to become voting members of the non-profit consortium. As a final step, after the committee has voted on proposed emojis, it launches a six-month public comment process to ensure that anyone can raise concerns before the emojis are encoded and distributed”. The question though is, is it honestly that simple? And with the barriers to lifetime membership already a deterrent for the average interested party, are the emojis that we are getting truly the result of a democratic process involving all stakeholders, or, the influence of the tech giants who have the financial means to ensure that non-profits such as the Unicode Consortium continue to exist?
The question of standardization vs interpretation- is standardization a good thing or a doomed mission?
What does the term standardization really mean over and above having the same set of emoji appearing on various devices, particularly in the face of factors such as varying societal norms, culture, age, location, and value systems? Do the current emojis have an artistic likeness or image similar to all communities in the world? Can they be said to be allowing and accommodating of people who have been historically excluded? Who determines what is deemed the standard and whether it is representative and inclusive enough? Questions that will take a while to answer. While the Unicode Consortium is probably doing a good job of ensuring homogeneity across devices, their ability to ensure that the emojis are representative and inclusive enough is something that remains in question for as long as the current barriers to entry remain in place.
Language versus. Dialect- is the choice and use of the term dialect a political one?
While localization of emoji seems like a good idea in the move towards increased representation and inclusivity, during the discussion there was a realization that the process is not entirely a black-and-white one, and, that much deeper thinking and consideration is required around the subject. And how does this influence the argument for the localization of emoji?
Various schools of thought state that emoji are a language, rather than mere images that communicate feelings and thoughts. With that arises conversations and arguments around the varying political and social contexts within which emoji are used, and how cultural norms and value systems shape the way we perceive and understand these gestures, feelings, and emotions that we convey through emojis. This in turn could affect how emojis are used to represent communities and the extent of their inclusivity.
What can we do now?
Some of the possible solutions to how the community could contribute to the emoji-making process for now include;
Joining the Emojination community
The Emojination collective aims to make emoji approval an inclusive, representative process. The organization started after a realization that the voting members were limited to predominantly big-tech companies based in the US. They also realized that the review process was skewed as decision-makers were mostly white, male, and engineers. The Emojination community is working towards changing that. The community currently has a list of emoji that they are working on submitting and have also created space for interested parties who may want to work on any of the emoji that have been slated for the year or contribute their own ideas. They also have designers who can assist in developing your idea.
Finding governance models that work for emojis are extremely important because we'll be able to build on them in the future.
The existing governance model for emojis is currently dominated by the opinion of big tech and skewed towards the typical white, male engineer as the overall decision maker. The problem with such an existing mode is clearly the lack of diversity of thought and inclusivity in the use and creation of emojis for public use. Like the internet governance space, the fact that emoji have increasingly become a sort of de-facto language has resulted in instances of repression, cyberbullying, and clampdowns against minority-related emoji. It is thus important to have governance models that respect minority and human rights even in this particular space.
Crowdfunding initiatives to have a collective on the Unicode voting group
Apart from joining the Emojination community, parties particularly from the internet freedom and digital rights spaces could raise funds and have a collective(s) with shared interests be a part of the Unicode voting group. This will however bank on the level of interest in the wider community, the ability and sustained effort to raise enough funds on an annual basis to be a Unicode voting partner, and whether the initiatives are able to eventually become sustainable enough to do this on their own.