I really, really dislike this kind of medium-to-long form article that don't bother to even expose some sort of context (topic introductory line). This is incredibly disrespectful to the reader. You read the first half trying to put the pieces together, while given that this is a proto-longform article (does not have the length, but has the tone), there is fluff added here and there for flavor. This is so frustrating to read.

> The truth, then, is this: our generation was raised with the understanding that the image we portrayed mattered more than who we actually were not out of some malevolent, externally imposed agenda, but because it was actually true. The result was that nothing we ever did felt organic; instead, everything felt like a checked box.

As every generation before? Why even speak about generation here? This seems like an absurd reduction from the author, while this is the kind of thing you learn to recognize as you age and you start seeing the word with your own eyes. Most people becomes disillusioned as time goes on, seeing how much public action is fake.

A much more interesting analysis would be to show how the new engaging platforms distord this longstanding social behavior (signaling), amplifying it or distording it. But to say that they are an "Instagram" generation is giving far too much credit to Instagram. The world was not "disrupted" by Instagram, it was only a lens and a way to capitalize on this behavior.

I could go on with the "lost authenticity", but I feel I'm just trying to justify the time taken to read this empty piece.