Emoji characters with adapted skin tones are used positively and are rarely abused, a study of Twitter posts has shown.
Fears that a range of skin colour options for the social media icons might be used inappropriately, in provoking antagonistic racial sentiment, have been unfounded since their introduction in 2015, the results show.
Drawing on a sample of a billion tweets, researchers found that most people who chose to modify their emojis opted for a skin tone that aligned with their own.
In tweets where the selected skin tone was different from that of the user, posts were found to be mostly positive.
READ MORE: Facebook to alert users affected by Cambridge Analytica data breach
Users with darker skin, according to their Twitter profiles, were most likely to modify their emoji, while users with light skin were less likely to make any changes. This underlines the importance to users of being able to express their identity online, researchers say.
Almost half of modified emojis used a light skin tone, because most users are white, the study found. The darkest skin tones were used least throughout most regions of the world, even in Africa, perhaps reflecting the lack of internet access in developing regions.
The study, by scientists at the University of Edinburgh, is to be presented at the 12th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media in Stanford, California, in June.
READ MORE: Facebook to alert users affected by Cambridge Analytica data breach
Dr Walid Magdy, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Informatics, who led the research, said: “The introduction of skin tone choices for emojis has been a success in representing diversity and their extensive use shows that they meet a real demand from users.”
Alexander Robertson, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Informatics, who took part in the study, said: “This result should encourage the addition of more emoji options for self-representation – adding to those that have been recently made available, such as red hair.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here