Discussion from 2 weeks ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47274676

Having spent a long time in the consulting world and adjacent (national security particularly) spaces, I think the most pernicious thing about "jargon" is not that it serves as a social in-group bonding signal (which is part of the problem), but that it specifically conflates actions and outcomes in a way that bypasses critical thought. The use and misuse of natsec shibboleths like "lethality" is a good example; "we're going to maximize lethality," first implies that whatever we're doing (kicking out minority groups, spending more time on PT, committing war crimes) will "maximize lethality," implies that we have a working definition of whatever "lethality" is, and, critically, implies that "lethality" is necessary for the fulfillment of whatever our actual goals are. "Lethality" is an adjective, not a goal, but the second you start sprinkling your PPT with the military adjectives du jour (lethality, resilience, survivability, full-spectrum anything) then your audience is already nodding along. These are good things! Who doesn't want to be more lethal, more survivable, more full-spectrum? But a billion dollars later, you can see that none of this actually amounted to a strategy beyond "massive transfer of taxpayer dollars to the prime-of-the-day."

The corporate world is, of course, even more prone to this; it's where the military got it from, after all. Slice out every jargonized adjective or verb from a proposal deck and see how little is often left, and how little it really addresses the user concerns.

I absolutely love corporate jargon. Not in an earnest way, but maybe more in the way people love terrible movies.

For example, I’ll inject corpo-bullshit into regular conversations. When someone asks me to do something, instead of saying “no thanks”, I’ll say something like “this ideation aligns poorly with our 10,000 foot goals on a go-forward basis. Let’s revisit in a few cycles.”

It's utterly maddening to me how much annoying doublespeak permeates through corporate American culture.

Even when management does something that seems objectively awful, they always feel a need to try and spin it into something aggressively positive (e.g. treating layoffs as an "opportunity to reorganize"). You can't speak candidly about anything because anything remotely negative will come off as a "bad attitude" or "not a team player".

After a job interview I'm expected to send an email about how I "appreciate the opportunity regardless of the outcome". I suppose that's not completely untrue, but to some extent if I don't get the job it really is a waste of time for both parties. I've been told you're supposed to send a thank you letter even if you're declined, which feels like a punch in the gut. You've already rejected me and decided I'm not good enough to work at your magnificent company, but you still expect me to grovel and suck up to you.

I've told this story before, but at a previous job at a BigCo I made the statement "we all do this for the money" [1]. I end up getting told by my manager that that was inappropriate and indicative of an attitude problem. It was candid, but is it untrue? I don't think so; you might do it for other reasons in addition to the money, but if the job stopped paying you then you would stop showing up, and that's totally fine.

I am sure there are studies saying that being overly candid and honest leads to worse outcomes in corporations, and fine, maybe it's "necessary", but I don't have to like it. I wish I could live in the a utopia where people say what they actually mean. I wish I could live in a society were I'm not expected to pretend that this isn't fucking weird.

"Weird" is the right word for it. It's weird that corporations seem to like being lied to. It's weird that everyone just goes along with it. It's weird that not everyone seems to think it's weird.

[1] To be clear, I didn't bring this up out of nowhere; people were criticizing a potential job candidate trying to negotiate his salary higher, which I thought was a little unfair.

> Anytime someone refers to a sector as a "space" (as in "I'm really getting into the AI space") it's like they're making me chew tinfoil.Anytime someone refers to a sector as a "space" (as in "I'm really getting into the AI space") it's like they're making me chew tinfoil.

oh come on.

jargon is incredibly useful. here on HN we know that very well. clanker, agent, +1, LGTM, these are extremely convenient jargon we use daily. and here, he's complaining about 'space' not 'AI'. AI is itself jargon. There's nothing "artificial" about it (just non-organic), and nothing "intelligent" either.

'enshittification' is jargon.

> I steer clear of jargon used by firms to lionize themselves, like "hyperscaler."

it's just descriptive (usefully so), not self-congratulatory.

and what's wrong with "thought leader"? it's a pejorative, not acclaim. even more so when the user takes themselves seriously.

he does go on to get to the point about "bullshit", and i would agree completely with the title, that there is a correlation. why lament and complain about it? i absolutely adored adobe flash -- ad blocking was oh so easy in those days. i would actually narrow the problem from "bullshit" to "doublespeak". i think that is where the real problem lies. bullshit is just bullshit, it's fine.

> Many people apply the term "enshittification" very loosely indeed, to mean "something that is bad,"

I haven't actually seen much of this. What I have seen (and done myself) is applying the term to a situation where the incentives are (mis)aligned to make it so things stochastically get ever-worse for an effectively-captive audience. The term resonates because it captures the process dynamics we all feel, not merely thing being in a poor state.

While this differs from the original definition which involved three parties (users, customers, investors), the bulk of that difference is that the original usage simply had two separate enshittification dynamics (users->customers and customers->investors).

[flagged]