5 ms·

The author seems to make up their mind early on that "content creator" = "slop creator". I think there is a lot more use to the label than that, and the reason

The author seems to make up their mind early on that "content creator" = "slop creator". I think there is a lot more use to the label than that, and the reason why some people in the space happily self-label as "content creators". For one it creates a delineation to "influencers" with the contrast that a "content creator" _creates_ something. They also create _content_, which could on the one hand be seen as "anything that fills a void", or more positively "something that's interesting". Most of the examples that the author highlighted I would classify as non-content/slop. I think "content creator" is also a good descriptor for people that work as "independent creators in the digital media space", whose activities spread across multiple social media platforms, and would thus be hard to pidgeon hole into just one of: youtuber, streamer, podcaster, etc. as people working in the space full time often do all of that.

detaro 2y ago
Indeed, they are using a very restrictive and negative definition of the word. I totally get why many people dislike the term and don't want it applied to themselves, but as you say it does have a use and does not have to be negative. I don't disagree with a lot in the post, but it is odd to tie it to the "creator" term.
JohnMakin 2y ago
If you are a successful content creator by default you are engaging in slop by the virtue of the fact that these platforms reward slop. if you don’t know what I mean, look at the gaming of the youtube algorithm and how every successful youtube video is titled in the exact same style. “You won’t BELIEVE what we did after THIS happened!” with a sloppified thumbnail image.
- hobofan 2y ago
  So what? That doesn't make the video itself bad (the "content" if you will). You could easily aim the same criticism at books and book titles and cover art, which by the same standards is in a constant state of sloppified titles and cover art that never strays too far from the norm. But who cares? There's still enjoyable and valuable content in those books, regardless of how they represent on the outside.
drcongo 2y ago
Even allowing for what you've written here, it's still such an awful label because the two words are so vacuous. What is "content"? What is a "creator"? They're meaningless when stuck together. My own creative pursuits have meaningful descriptors: photographer (I take photos), music producer (I produce music), writer (I enjoy writing) etc. and each of these has a meaningful output - a piece of music, a photograph, a book. If someone calls themself a "content creator" it suggests that the actual nature and output of the "content" is unimportant, it's secondary to just "I must create something in order to shove it in front of other people, I don't care what it is, I just have to shove it at you". I also hate influencers.

detaro 2y ago

Indeed, they are using a very restrictive and negative definition of the word. I totally get why many people dislike the term and don't want it applied to themselves, but as you say it does have a use and does not have to be negative. I don't disagree with a lot in the post, but it is odd to tie it to the "creator" term.

JohnMakin 2y ago

If you are a successful content creator by default you are engaging in slop by the virtue of the fact that these platforms reward slop. if you don’t know what I mean, look at the gaming of the youtube algorithm and how every successful youtube video is titled in the exact same style. “You won’t BELIEVE what we did after THIS happened!” with a sloppified thumbnail image.

hobofan 2y ago
So what? That doesn't make the video itself bad (the "content" if you will). You could easily aim the same criticism at books and book titles and cover art, which by the same standards is in a constant state of sloppified titles and cover art that never strays too far from the norm. But who cares? There's still enjoyable and valuable content in those books, regardless of how they represent on the outside.

drcongo 2y ago

Even allowing for what you've written here, it's still such an awful label because the two words are so vacuous. What is "content"? What is a "creator"? They're meaningless when stuck together. My own creative pursuits have meaningful descriptors: photographer (I take photos), music producer (I produce music), writer (I enjoy writing) etc. and each of these has a meaningful output - a piece of music, a photograph, a book. If someone calls themself a "content creator" it suggests that the actual nature and output of the "content" is unimportant, it's secondary to just "I must create something in order to shove it in front of other people, I don't care what it is, I just have to shove it at you". I also hate influencers.