3 ms·

This is insightful. But I'm not sure it's completely true, I think people just have shifted their perception of what selling out means. Content creators on You

This is insightful. But I'm not sure it's completely true, I think people just have shifted their perception of what selling out means. Content creators on YouTube, for example, get criticized when they literally sell their brand to a larger conglomerate. It seems people do not complain if they do sponsorizations tho.

GJim 9mo ago
> Content creators I'd argue the very words creating "content" implies something commercial is already in mind and is a driver, rather than just doing your own thing online and not caring (such showing a video of your band/hobby on YouTube in case anybody is interested). To a Gen-X'er, the former sounds like they are already a sell out :-) I certainly agree with you that perceptions have shifted.
- the_af 9mo ago
  I agree with you and I find the term "creating content" awful, even though I'm forced to use it because it's something people immediately understand. "Content creator"... what happened to artist, playwright, painter, hobbyist, etc? It makes it seem as if they were making stuff for a corporation to sell.
  - idiotsecant 9mo ago
    That is what is happening though. It's an accurate description. These are cases of making content for corporations to sell ads against.
    - the_af 9mo ago
      It is what's happening in some cases, not all. Also, language shapes thought, so we encourage this to happen if we frame it as "content creation". It's something to push against. Note it's not even relevant whether something is commercial. Art can be commercial and not be just "content". A musician is not a "content creator" which happens to create content in the shape of music. "Content" implies it doesn't really matters, what matters is engagement and the platform (and advertisers, etc). It's not healthy to think of hobbies, art, and entertainment as exclusively about this. Imagine if Oscar Wilde, Herman Melville, Alan Moore, etc had been thought of merely as "content creators". This is not a new idea. Stallman was already pushing back against this "content" term decades ago.
  - weikju 9mo ago
    Content is the filler in the limited space between ads.
  - Intermernet 9mo ago
    Imagine Davinci putting ads for the Medici money lending services into his paintings. That's where we're at now.
  - throaway54 9mo ago
    Content is an intentionally chosen word in order to make "feeding from the corporate trough" not seem so repulsive.

GJim 9mo ago

> Content creators I'd argue the very words creating "content" implies something commercial is already in mind and is a driver, rather than just doing your own thing online and not caring (such showing a video of your band/hobby on YouTube in case anybody is interested). To a Gen-X'er, the former sounds like they are already a sell out :-) I certainly agree with you that perceptions have shifted.

the_af 9mo ago
I agree with you and I find the term "creating content" awful, even though I'm forced to use it because it's something people immediately understand. "Content creator"... what happened to artist, playwright, painter, hobbyist, etc? It makes it seem as if they were making stuff for a corporation to sell.
- idiotsecant 9mo ago
  That is what is happening though. It's an accurate description. These are cases of making content for corporations to sell ads against.
  - the_af 9mo ago
    It is what's happening in some cases, not all. Also, language shapes thought, so we encourage this to happen if we frame it as "content creation". It's something to push against. Note it's not even relevant whether something is commercial. Art can be commercial and not be just "content". A musician is not a "content creator" which happens to create content in the shape of music. "Content" implies it doesn't really matters, what matters is engagement and the platform (and advertisers, etc). It's not healthy to think of hobbies, art, and entertainment as exclusively about this. Imagine if Oscar Wilde, Herman Melville, Alan Moore, etc had been thought of merely as "content creators". This is not a new idea. Stallman was already pushing back against this "content" term decades ago.
- weikju 9mo ago
  Content is the filler in the limited space between ads.
- Intermernet 9mo ago
  Imagine Davinci putting ads for the Medici money lending services into his paintings. That's where we're at now.
- throaway54 9mo ago
  Content is an intentionally chosen word in order to make "feeding from the corporate trough" not seem so repulsive.