When we call things bubbles or hypes, we use thick terms. This means that we are not only describing an empirical case but add a normative or action-guiding dimension. Calling a technology „hype“ does not only describe the increase and decrease of attention or confidence but warns the addressee to be careful, to resist the appealing emotions of stories, and to not take every claim at face value. Similarly, calling a scientific discourse a „bubble“ does not just describe interaction patterns but always suggests reaching out to other opinions and people because, finally, there exists no „good epistemic bubble“ (see Meredith Sheeks 2022). Calling things bubble or hype goes beyond describing – but our studies hardly acknowledge this.

I refuse and argue against the dominant research attitude in my field that claims to only describe the world or to just write another innocent (his-)story among others. Also when writing fictional or historical narratives, we are responsible to deliberate about the virtues and values represented by our protagonists and their fictional actions. Stories have morals and suggest policy options. If our stories aim to provide learning about bubbles or hype as an avoidable cause within an unfolding sequence of events, we must justify our assumed background theory about attention and discourse patterns. When we tell a story to be learned from, we indirectly commit ourselves to certain „if… then statements“ as being valid to govern this or similar situations.

I perceive double standards when observing other actors in science and technology development as being part of a wider society while pretending to participate in an isolated but honorable debate that accumulates seemingly innocent descriptions and confusing vocabulary like „responsible hype“ that we can just call it the responsible generation of attention.