The SARS-CoV-2 virus, commonly referred to as the coronavirus, has led to a dramatic increase in the use of the ? (“microbe”) emoji. Jeremy Burge, the chief emoji officer at Emojipedia, noted that its use surged by 1,519% from August 2019 to April 2020, although it still constitutes just 0.06% of all emoji usage. While it remains a minor element in the global emoji lexicon, it has become a widely accepted symbol for Covid-19. This raises questions about its origins, creators, and the implications of its design on how we communicate about health crises.

Origins of the Emoji

To be included in an operating system update, an emoji must first be proposed to the Unicode Consortium, a nonprofit organization that bridges technology and language. This body aims to enable computer use in any language, overseeing emoji as an essential digital lexicon.

The growth of emoji has been unprecedented, expanding from 698 characters in 2010 to nearly 1,317 a decade later. Anyone can submit a proposal for an emoji, but it must adhere to stringent guidelines that justify its potential popularity.

The ? emoji was initially proposed in April 2017 and became part of Unicode Version 11.0 in 2018, which was a significant update that introduced new skin tones. This proposal, supported by the International Council for Science and the American Geophysical Union, called for more scientific emoji to better represent scientific topics in everyday conversations. The highly followed “I Fucking Love Science” Facebook page exemplified the growing presence of science in social media.

The Unicode Emoji Subcommittee (ESC), comprised of language experts, reviews new emoji submissions and updates existing ones. Once a consensus is reached, it is up to tech companies to design their versions.

For Apple users, the emoji resembles a toxic green blob with a structure akin to influenza or HIV. Meanwhile, Android or Twitter users see a more bug-like representation, resembling a generic microbe or bacterium.

The Responsibility of Emoji Design

The acceptance or rejection of new emoji carries significant weight. By shaping the language, we influence the conversation. The ESC aims to democratize this process, allowing public proposals while ensuring that new emoji reflect existing global discourse rather than introducing new concepts.

The ESC has made its decision-making process somewhat transparent, although some discussions may seem trivial, such as the debate over additional expressions for the ? emoji.

Out of 1,204 requests for new emoji, only about 22% were approved. Many were rejected due to concerns about cluttering the emoji lexicon. The remaining proposals are left for future consideration, which highlights the need for careful deliberation in the decision-making process.

As the emoji language expands, the demand for public consultation has become increasingly apparent. Emoji must reflect the entirety of global dialogue, whether in academic settings or casual conversations.

The Serious Role of Emoji

The success of emoji can be attributed to three main factors: 1. Accessibility: Emoji are standardized and available across most major tech platforms. 2. Universality: They can be understood regardless of the user's language or literacy level. 3. Emotional Resonance: Emoji are often seen as “cute and affectionate,” enhancing text communication.

The most popular emoji generally convey laughter, affection, and light-heartedness, providing a means to soften serious discussions. However, with the introduction of the ? emoji, a more significant role emerged. Initially proposed during the Zika virus outbreak in South America, the emoji aims to facilitate discussions about mosquito-borne diseases.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs noted that the inclusion of the ? emoji serves as a valuable tool for raising awareness about diseases like malaria and dengue, bridging language barriers and educating the public on health risks.

Thus, the ? emoji not only represents a new character but also a public health tool. Its widespread use signifies an evolution in how emojis are perceived—not merely as playful images, but as crucial symbols in global health discussions.

The Challenge of Representation

Returning to the ? emoji, typing “germ” can yield this emoji, but so can “microbe,” “bacteria,” or “virus,” despite their distinct meanings in scientific contexts. If emojis are integral to global health conversations, precision in their representation is essential.

Concerns were raised during the development of the ? emoji about its broad applicability. Public demand, rather than linguistic accuracy, is intended to guide its usage. As discussions continued, the necessity for distinct representations of viruses and bacteria became evident, particularly highlighted by the ongoing pandemic.

Discrepancies in emoji design among different tech companies can lead to confusion. For instance, an Apple user sending the ? emoji to an Android user may create mixed messages if the latter sees a different representation of the microbe. While contextual communication may clarify the intention, this ambiguity could be problematic in public health discussions.

When the science emojis were launched, NPR's Nell Greenfieldboyce consulted various scientists, revealing mixed feelings about the ? emoji. Virologist Kristen Bernard expressed disappointment, noting that it does not accurately reflect the viruses they study.

As the usage of emojis expands, combining them to convey more specific meanings has emerged, particularly in regions like Spain and Italy, where the ? emoji is paired with the crown emoji (?) to denote “corona.”

While there is little evidence that the ? emoji has caused communication problems, it is clear that as emojis become more prevalent, their functions are evolving. The focus will increasingly shift towards precision in communication, making emojis not just tools for expressing emotions, but also vital instruments for conveying important information accurately and responsibly.