"Authentic" is dead. And so is "is dead." | Hacker News Reader

"Authentic" is dead. And so is "is dead."

longform.asmartbear.com

35 pointsairhangerf1533 comments

The words aren’t the problem, it’s the authenticity of the speaker.

Which is why marketing sucks. The person is literally being paid to say the words. As fake as it gets.

The immediate problem isn't the authenticity of the speaker, it is the perceived authenticity of the speaker. Thanks to overuse, speakers who use those particular phrases won't get perceived as authentic. Which means that they won't get to prove whether they are one way or the other.

Of course the right marketing statement can at best get your foot in the door. You have to actually deliver to succeed. (Except in enterprise sales. Which are broken exactly because the decision makers aren't the ones who have to use the software, so marketing matters more than quality.)

Gaming the system is the ultimate problem of the Internet: writing catchy titles to less than average articles to compete for attention, using tricks to rank higher in search results, creating mock videos to trick users into installing otherwise shitty games. Sometimes I think that the punishment for gaming the rules should be much harder, but I wouldn't know how to implement that.

I realized something similar the other day. In US, we seem to be starved for anyone with any kind of real belief ( even if we disagree ), which, if it is sustained for long enough time, we tend to perceive as conviction. Naturally, there are attempts to replicate that, but it is not easy to replicate years of actual effort.

It's worse than that.

The whole American language is normalizing toward exaggeration and the use of superlatives for even the most mundane things.

As a consequence, nuances as lost, debates are instantly polarizing, and words lose substance and meaning, so you get little information out of many discussions.

It's not just the bots that make the noise/signal ratio go down. It's also the people.

I hear words like fascists/communists, friends/hilarious, amazing/shit used in such a large spectrum of situations they eventually convey nothing more than what tribe the speaker wants to be identified with and what gains said person hopes to get from talking.

On top of that now, when you need to talk about the extremes, you are lacking the tools to do so, and all things seem to be more or less at the same level. Minor inconvenience and deadly risks, all in the same plater.

And don't get me started on the constant virtue signaling and sale speeches.

From my European point of view, the US communication looks like a circus.

> The whole American language is normalizing toward exaggeration and the use of superlatives for even the most mundane things.

> From my European point of view, the US communication looks like a circus.

"instantly polarizing", "constant virtue signaling"...it sounds like it's not just Americans who are tending towards superlatives and exaggeration.

When in Rome.

> The whole American language is normalizing toward exaggeration

That is lovely.

One must fit the medium to the target audience.

It's always nice when Europeans play free with their comments on America as if they understand it.

Well, we might not understand the US (how could we — and what would that even mean?), but your parent commentor sure does understand how they perceive certain phenomena and how they feel about them.

I will never be able to create music like, idk, Boy George for example, and I therefore don’t “understand” it, but that doesn’t mean I cannot dislike it.

At this point, I'm still waiting for any clue showing America understands itself.

How else is he going to feel superior?

Establishment politicians in Europe, on the other hand, pretend to be nuanced, tolerant, resolute... But it's all a charade for midwits. It's as disgusting and dishonest as as American politicians' partizanship.

Dark times when "authoritarian" Chinese sound reasonable in comparison.

Oh no, I fully understand the extent of our own obsolescence.

The takeaway (that obfuscation is bad and specificity is valuable) is clear and uncontroversial. But an issue is that nearly every suggestion entails lengthening your prose.

There is a time and place for precision, and there is also one for concision. Marketing speak is dangerous not due to brevity but intent.

> Instead of saying it’s fast, show a speed test (especially against competitors).

This is one of my pet peeves; projects claiming to be (blazingly *barfs*) fast, without some serious benchmarks to show it. Just don't.

> A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically ‘dead’ (e. g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgels for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles’ heel, swan song, hotbed.

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

The list of overused words and phrases is good and I agree with a lot of it, but the recommendations is just more of the same blather stated in a slightly different way. As dwaltrip says elsehwere in this thread, it's not the words per se, it's that we know you're lying.

I agree, but I do have to give the author some credit here

The alternatives at least are making a falsifiable statement

"Our tool blocks 92 million bad requests per day" is falsifiable

"Our tool offers powerful security options" is not

While they're both kind of marketing blather, one is more "real"

Of course if you are making falsifiable statements in your marketing, and they actually do turn out to be false, then that's (in theory) illegal right?

Is the first more fallible because it’s quantified? Otherwise isn’t it easier to falsify a “powerful security feature” as it could be neither powerful or security related. Whereas a “bad” request is much less specific and thus harder to disprove?

That is what falsifiable means. It is a claim the truth of which can be disproved. “Powerful” is no more falsifiable than “best.”

Really liked one of the linked articles https://longform.asmartbear.com/opposite-test/ which grounds better for me why these phrases are supposed to be dead.

These words are over-used because they're powerful. Other powerful words include "universal," "always," "never," "forever," and "for everyone."

I wouldn't go so far as to say we should stop using them altogether, but they raise my suspicions. What claim is being made? What's the evidence? Do I believe that claim?

I get the author's screed here, but word choice really depends on the context. For instance, there aren't many synonyms or concise alternatives for the word "simple."

That said, it's healthy to spot your tired patterns or have then pointed out to you.

There used to be an Emacs plugin called "artbollocks" for weeding out pretentious diction and weasel words. Anyone got recommendations for a more modern take?

Its all just hacking somebody elses head with signaling by in and outgroup. Up next websites generated to appeal to your ingroups mindset.

For learning what to use instead, subscribe to my monthly newsletter

I have a problem with "_ considered harmful".

So… “’Considered harmful’ considered harmful”?

I can go one step farther with https://mort.coffee/home/considered-harmful-essays/.

That one was previous discussed on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9744916.

It’s just considerations, all the way down.

nice

This sort of cultural treadmill only exists because of deceitful marketers. Put an end to marketing and we'll see culture retain its meaning again.

Contrary to the headline, in my opinion authenticity is not dead, it's -everything-. Whenever marketers stumble upon something authentic, they will deploy it and milk it for every last penny until people are so tired of it that it's meaningfully worthless. Then, marketers will move onto whatever has become authentic in its place. In the presence of marketing capital, nothing is safe, nothing can last, it will all be dried out and discarded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com