companies programmed us to refer to art, music, video, and writing as "content" to make it seem like it comes from the website and not from a person who had to think of it and make it

I really hate how content became how we refer to art :(

@patrickhwillems.bsky.social has an absolutely tremendous video about the use of the word "content". Ad free on Nebula! Also one about Tom Cruise's hair, but I'm not sure that's *entirely* relevant.

mmmm as i remember it was hungry writers in the late 80s contemplating the burgeoning cable market and starting to drool. Eyes lighting, “ so many channels are gonna need so much content!” magazine journalism was doomed and we knew it😝

Successful content keeps consumers content to keep scrolling to the next ad.

I think the rot started even earlier when magazines started using the term "words:" instead of "written by" in bylines, like the writer just thought of some words and put them down randomly instead of crafting an expression of a concept.

Counter-point: Every Buzzfeed, content-mill, listicle I’ve ever read has given me an intimate sense of a J-school student in distress

Language changes by how people use it, so as one voice we just need to reject that On 3 1

I see content as different from art. Content is media created for promotion, either direct or indirect. Art is human creativity, meant to produce an emotional response, to make us think, or to share the creator's thoughts. And these are two of many types of communication.

i call my drawings cuntent just kidding but imagine

imo it’s the commodity form of intellectual property. you have some kind of art/creation -> IP law -> monetized by a business, and that’s content baby. two steps removed from anything actually created