Fails all contrast measures abysmally: https://contrast-ratio.com/#%23E1E8ED-on-white

And this is despite that fact that the actual "font color" is #14171A with excellent contrast: https://contrast-ratio.com/#%2314171A-on-white

But these bizarre characters don't respond the text color and thus utterly unpredictable in their legibility.

The use of the color is quite different from a regular character, so measuring by the same yardstick makes no sense. This is a blob of color, not just some thin lines.

> these bizarre characters

At least on Twitter.com, they're not characters, they're SVG images.

PNG, but yes.

Maybe it differs based on the browser? Shows up as https://abs-0.twimg.com/emoji/v2/svg/1f47b.svg to me.

https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/72x72/1f47b.png ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> Fails all contrast measures abysmally: https://contrast-ratio.com/#%23E1E8ED-on-white

At first, I was thinking that I could see the difference quite clearly between the two colors and I had no clue what you were talking about. Then I hit the "swap colors" button and happened to notice that there was a bunch of text on the left side that I hadn't even seen...

Very much depends on what browser/platform you're on. Many different emoji implementations out there.

Nope, Twitter replaces the unicode character with an SVG image, so it should show the same for everyone.

Depends on how you're browsing. The legacy fallback does not replace it, eg when you have js disabled

None of the emoji implementations use a solid white ghost without something else (border or shadow).

I have JS disabled, and just viewed it in both the legacy mobile view and the legacy desktop view. Neither have what was originally described.

Not everyone has near perfect vision, in which case a better monitor won't fix too much if contrast is bad.

"being a better consumer is the answer" no thanks

Yes, being a good consumer (which is not the same as spending much) is important. Research your stuff before buying.