The specificity of Donald Trump Jr.'s email chain is what makes it so damning. 。
On Tuesday, the oldest son of the president published emails (obtained beforehand by 。 The New York Times。) in which he wrote to a friend who was serving as liaison between the Trump campaign and a Russian lawyer with connections to the Russian government. The emails show Trump Jr. had reason to believe he was being offered Moscow's help to get his father into the White House in 2016, and he responded to that information by writing, "if it's what you say I love it..."。
SEE ALSO:Emoji sheriffs are patrolling Twitter 。SEE ALSO:Emoji sheriffs are patrolling Twitter。 Email is a medium that lends itself to this kind of specificity. As Farhad Manjoo of 。The New York Times 。
recently wrote, "It preserves time, location and state of mind." For all of email's issues, this may prove to be a great thing for the future integrity of American democracy. But as messaging platforms such as Slack slowly eat away at email's dominance in the field of professional correspondence, that specificity may not be something we enjoy for much longer. What happens when, perhaps sooner than we think, the next text-based scandal breaks and leaves Americans deciphering a slew of Slack messages full of emoji? What if, instead of writing, "I love it," Trump Jr. had just responded with a heart? What if, instead of writing, "I love it," Trump Jr. had just responded with a heart? How would Americans interpret that?
By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.。
Thanks for signing up! 。
If the current political climate of America tells us anything, it should be that a consensus on emoji interpretation is unlikely.。 The difference between guilt and innocence in leaks of future potentially incriminating documents could come down to a similar debate over interpretation. 。"If [Trump Jr.] would have just put a bunch of very happy sounding emojis, how would it have gone in 。
"If [Trump Jr.] would have just put a bunch of very happy sounding emojis, how would it have gone in。
The New York Times。
?" said Bradley Shear, a lawyer with expertise in social media law. "I mean, what would they have said? That's the big question."。
"Pictures and emoticons, they mean something slightly different depending on who's using them," Shear said. "It will come down to the interpretation of the fact finder, whether it's a judge or a jury."。
(责任编辑:探索)
Uber's $100M settlement over drivers as contractors may not be enough
'Darkest Hour' review: Gary Oldman shines in WWII drama
Sustainable company is turning cigarette butts and smartphones into furniture
'Metroid' is finally back and the reviews are GREAT
This coloring book is here for all your relationship goals
Emmys predictions 2017: Who'll win Best Drama without Game of Thrones?
Will the U.S. help Mexico after a massive earthquake killed dozens?
Apple's new Apple TV 4K is built to fuel its Hollywood ambitions
You will love/hate Cards Against Humanity's new fortune cookies
Apple is introducing fast charging for the iPhone X ... but you'll have to pay extra for it
Samsung Galaxy Note7 teardown reveals the magic behind the phone's iris scanner
JetBlue offers $99 flights for evacuees returning to Florida