Introduction

Within the sphere of YouTube, there is much discussion about the significance of authenticity. From YouTube creators themselves to sociological theses, the conception of YouTubers—and online persona’s in general—as a more authentic persona compared to traditional celebrity is commonplace. Indeed, the parasocial dynamic, which is based on the appeal of a persona as being “authentic” has been in the limelight for many years, and is almost ubiquitous in dedicated online spaces such as YouTube.

Less discussed in the mainstream are the linguistic and social resources that YouTubers use to index this authenticity, as well as why these associations might exist in the first place. Yet as we’ll see, the sociolinguistics of building and maintaining authenticity on YouTube is rich in complexity and significant in its implications. Authenticity on YouTube, in all its dimensions, is so vast as to occupy entire theses, so this article will narrow the scope, to focus particularly on the sociolinguistic variables meta-commentary. To be clear, I’m using this term in the broader connotation rather than its specific denotation. When I refer to meta-commentary, I’m referring to an umbrella of related ideas, such as breaking the fourth wall, self-reference, etc. Acts that break from the internal narrative of the video. In this article, we’ll interrogate how and why these linguistic variables might be employed, consider which forces influenced their usage, and investigate whether these variables in fact improve viewer perception of these creators.

Background

What we ought to first consider is that meta-commentary and outtakes are, at first glance, contradictory to what this paper claims they do, which is to index authenticity. Both of these decisions explicitly break immersion in the narrative of the video, which would seemingly remind the viewer of the videos’ construction, which is notably inauthentic. However, this interpretation ignores the reality of how viewers see the creators behind the videos. I’d argue that when viewers buy into the reality that the creators construct, the act of breaking immersion is perceived as something similar to “revealing the truth” which is seen as authentic. Living entirely within the reality of the narrative is unmarked but neutral. This is irrespective of the fact that both approaches are (generally) highly scripted and edited. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s “professional” as it relates to corporatization. Something fundamental about web 2.0 and YouTube that is significant in understanding authenticity, which is how a specific kind of corporate professionalism is associated with inauthenticity. Tom Nicholas’s video “Why YouTubers Hold Microphones Now” is a great examination of this phenomenon. In it, Tom explains how the variable “holding a microphone in frame” indexes “unprofessionalism”, which aligns them with a subcategory within youTubers that are less corporate and thus more authentic. Tom himself would not use these terms, he examines this from a sociological and professional perspective, but it’s exceedingly easy to map his argument into one which is centered around indexicality and indexical order (as described in Michael Silverstein’s Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life). The trend started with certain YouTubers who held their lavalier microphones in frame in videos (first order indexicality). Then YouTubers started to notice that other YouTubers were holding their lavalier microphones in frame. Through some process, they began to associate this variable with being less professional. Because professionalism has the association to being inauthentic, being unprofessional was seen as being more authentic, and so holding your lavalier microphone began to index authenticity (second order indexicality). Thus YouTube began to actively choose to hold their lavalier microphone in order to index this socially defined meaning of authenticity. From here on, we see the two way dynamic that Chompky describes in which the index and the category “compete” to determine the meaning behind the linguistic variable. We can even observe how the media companies (like Vox) that YouTubers wished to dissociate from through the use of this linguistic variable have begun to co-opt it to index its imbued social meaning and gain authenticity.

This link between unprofessionalism and inauthenticity is also perhaps why meta-commentary—which is generally unprofessional—is seen as a variable that indexes an authentic YouTuber, given that its opposite is a “corporate shill”. Meta-commentary indexes authenticity through presentation, and that presentation is something that the corporate media aims to sand down. This presentation can take many forms. It can and does exist in videos that are otherwise very professional in writing and production, but have the aesthetics of unprofessionalism. This is something important that we’ll talk in depth about in the next section. However, I want to give an example that is low-production. Specifically, Angela Collier’s video string theory lied to us and now science communication is hard. This video is perfect for talking about authenticity on a low-production level. The video is almost humorously casual and low effort. In order to, in her own words “avoid talking about the science”, she talks while playing Super Meat Boy, and the entire 52 minute video is one take. Outside of video overlays like the game, there is no editing. It’s something that literally anybody could do from a production perspective. And this aesthetic, this presentation of the material is so significant that the entire comments section is full of people commenting on this particular style. A video like this is outside of the standard, and thus people notice it. And the comments are all positive. They are in support of this format, while other comments clearly indicate that these viewers find her message to be authentic. With that, let’s talk about those more scripted videos.

Case Study

If I were to compare two highly researched, scripted and edited videos on the basis of the impact of meta-commentary (which i am), then Dan Olsen’s (YouTube channel: Folding Ideas) “This is Financial Advice” and Hbomberguy’s “Plagiarism and You(tube)” would be prime examples. “This is Financial Advice” and “Plagiarism and You(tube)” are both long-form video essays that comment / criticize specific movements or groups of people. “This is Financial Advice” chronicles the aftermath of GameStop short-squeeze and its devolvement into financial conspiracy theory, whereas “Plagiarism and You(tube)“examines instances of plagiarism on You(Tube) and the ideology behind it. Both videos were successful, and thus there is a substantial amount of second land meta–linguistic commentary by comments, clips, and comments on those clips. Crucially, these clips differ in their perceived professionalism and utilization of meta-commentary and outtakes.

Dan Olsen is a filmmaker, and his videos reflect this. Like all his other works, “This is Financial Advice” is professionally written and produced and falls entirely behind the veil of the narrative. There is never an instance where Olsen breaks his character as the narrator nor the narrative itself. The video is also free of visual or auditory irregularities. the video adheres to the video equivalent of standard language ideology in that sense.

Hbomberguy is a YouTuber first and foremost. His videos are full of meta-commentary, “outtakes” that are clearly on purpose, and much more. It’s also notably unprofessional. He wears a cake-caked lab coat as a running gag that he inherited from previous videos, and films on a green screen, but doesn’t chroma-key it and just keeps the background as a green block. We’ll discuss more instances of this, but for now keep in mind the difference in professionalism and meta-commentary between the two videos.

Given what we’ve established, let’s pivot to examine whether we can observe a measurable change between the reception of these videos which could be attributed to the difference in those characteristics. To do that, we’ll use an admittedly bootstrapped method, examining “out of context” clips. “Out of context” clips are a popular online phenomenon where a person will compile out of context moments of a YouTuber / twitch streamer / online celebrity, which are typically just small moments that they found funny. Since many of Hbomberguy’s meta-commentary moments are for the sake of humor, this works as a metric of judging what people think about these moments, or lack of them.

For Dan Olsen, the issue is that it’s really hard to find any out of context clips. This is actually really interesting. He is a relatively big YouTuber and his videos are not lacking in humor. These should exist. Why don’t they? I’d argue that it’s because the professionalism that he confers to his videos means that there aren’t really any clips that are out of context. “Out of context” in this instance is closely tied to meta-commentary, which Folding Ideas doesn’t have. Hbomberguy is the ultimate comparison in this sense. While there are out of context clips from other YouTubers that have only a little explicit meta-commentary, Hbomberguy’s “out of context” clips are absolutely full of it. From the classic instance where he literally bursts through the wall (the fourth wall) to tell Ben Sharipo “JUST ONE SMALL PROBLEM, SELL THEIR HOUSES TO WHO BEN, FUCKING AQUAMAN.” or in the Plagairism video where he speaks directly to the audience, saying “nick literally says ‘james wrote this’, so at the very least, at the very least, James Somerton wrote this text, right? RIGHT?!? NOOO!!!” And while it’s true that his meta-commentary are some of the most entertaining and funny moments in these videos, the proportion of these videos that are meta-commentary dominates the proportion of humorous meta-commentary moments that are in the actual videos. Hbomberguy’s metacommentary is clearly something that is positively marked by viewers. Looking at the comments of these videos, there isn’t any comments that directly reference authenticity (why would anyone comment on the authenticity of a clip), but there is a clear wave of support for meta-commentary, and additionally, in his particular style of unprofessionalism.

Both of these videos are highly researched, there is no argument on whether these videos are truthful, but the question of whether they are authentic is trickier. Remember the claim of this article is that the meta-commentary that Hbomberguy is utilizing is indexing authenticity. In my opinion, both Dan Olsen and Hbomberguy are in the category of “authentic YouTuber” in some sense. However, the way in which they arrive there says something about this index of authenticity. Dan Olsen is authentic because the things that he’s saying feel like they are genuine. They are his authentic opinions and perspective. Hbomberguy is authentic because the way he presents his opinions feels genuine. Dan Olsen’s authenticity is one of narrative, presentation is not a factor, its the standard video ideology if you will. Hbomberyguy’s authenticity is one of presentation. He is authentic because he indexes authentic traits, and he does so in a way that the audience finds unforced.

Discussion

Ultimately the story of YouTube is the story of online culture, and the story of YouTube creators is the story of online celebrity. The thing about YouTubers is that they are performing an identity. When a YouTuber makes videos about science they become that person who makes science videos. Their identity is performed on screen, and the aesthetics of that performance have a profound impact on how that identity is perceived. In this perspective, indexicality is far more significant than almost anywhere else. When the totality of what you put out is curated specifically for a purpose, you have to rely more on association and indexicality. And in the online space, where there is so much content and dialogue, virtually everything that is established gets an imbued meaning, gets associated with everything else in the web.

This heightened linguistic landscape compounds with the parasocial nature of influencers. Influencers such as YouTubers interact more closely with their viewers / community. And when viewers feel a personal connection to you, and that personal connection is how you make money, there is a real vested interest in appearing authentic. Thus the importance of indexing authenticity. Authenticity is different for different kinds of creators. It began with people who were genuinely authentic, who genuinely had no money to spend on production. The low-budget style began out of necessity. Then as it began to gain cultural meaning, new YouTubers would imitate the style, not out of necessity, but because they too wanted to be in that subcategory of YouTuber. As corporations began to make their presence on YouTube known, there was a renewed interest in maintaining the distinction of “YouTuber” from corporate sponsored media.

Meta-commentary is fun, it’s engaging, but of course it has deeper imbued meaning. It’s one of many linguistic resources that YouTubers use to index unprofessionalism and authenticity, it is a sign that they belong in the authentic YouTubers camp. Authenticity on YouTube is a fight of indexical order for what it means to be a YouTuber, about who is a true creator on this platform.

References

1. Aslan, Erhan, and Camilla Vásquez. ” ‘cash me ousside’: A citizen sociolinguistic analysis of online metalinguistic commentary.” Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 22, no. 4, Sept. 2018, pp. 406–431, https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12303.
2. Riboni, Giorgia. Discourses of Authenticity on YouTube: From the Personal to the Professional. LED, Edizioni Universitarie Di Lettere Economia Diritto, 2020.
3. Silverstein, Michael. “Indexical Order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life.” Language & Communication, vol. 23, no. 3–4, July 2003, pp. 193–229, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0271-5309(03)00013-2.
4. Zhang, Qing. “Rhotacization and the ‘Beijing Smooth Operator’: The social meaning of a linguistic variable” Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 12, no. 2, Apr. 2008, pp. 201–222, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00362.x.