11 ms·

I Stopped “Creating Content”

312 points by mtlynch 3mo ago

stopamertime 3mo ago
A good point overall. It's skin-deep, though. Do you think a catch-all name is useful for something like content? Is it only distasteful on the internet/TV/etc. because of the negative impacts of mass-production and commoditisation, or is the idea itself inherently distasteful?
- azeirah 3mo ago
  The author addresses this, no? > But I did notice an immediate change, especially with words like “traffic.” Traffic makes me feel like I’m just throwing out flypaper and measuring whatever sticks. When I describe website visitors as “readers,” it reminds me that these are real people who have literally billions of other things they could be reading that day, but they’re choosing to spend some of their limited time with me.
- mtlynch 3mo ago
  OP here. Thanks for reading! I don't really have anything against the existence of the catchall term "content." Like, I don't expect the CEO of YouTube to say, "music, short film, art, comedy, journalism, ..., creators" every time he talks about YouTube users. It makes sense from their perspective to bucket everything into "content." The thing I found interesting was just that the language had crossed over to people where it doesn't make sense to bucket everything. If I'm a blogger, I can just say "blogger" and it's more meaningful than "content creator" but I think the people running small businesses or doing creative work have needlessly adopted the big bucket terminology of "content."
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    It's still weird the YouTube CEO would say "content" instead of "videos"
- nancyminusone 3mo ago
  Stanley Kubrick, Kane Parsons, and Mr. Beast walk into a bar. Bartender says, "Sorry,we don't serve content creators here." Who gets kicked out?
  - c-hendricks 3mo ago
    Kane Parsons is 20 years old (Sorry to use a meme but I couldn't drop this oddly perfect opportunity. Also Kane Parsons is 21 years old)
    - Imustaskforhelp 3mo ago
      Well done, my first thought after I realized what you did was the Slow clap meme https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1N5lZw7e78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1N5lZw7e78
pinter69 3mo ago
For me the term users sometimes sounds similar to traffic. I prefer customers - that you serve with your product.
- krupan 3mo ago
  The term "user" maybe made sense before any software was commercialized. It differentiated the programmer of the software from the non-programmer that used the software. Even then it was sometimes used derogatorily (especially when people were sneered at as "Lusers"). In the original Tron the Good Guys had to fight for the users. Customer is a much nicer term. Words do matter.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Even in a commercial context they aren't the same. The user is who sits in front of the screen, and the customer is who you have to please to make money.
  - pinter69 3mo ago
    You're right. But, nowadays these terms get more context meaning. For example - a user is someone who platforms sell their data to customers. Or a user is someone gullible you trick into making decisions that are good for the business. The literal term of someone who is using your system/product has evolved.
neochief 3mo ago
I feel that all the terms mentioned are useful in specific contexts. Web traffic brings visitors to your resource. If they read your blog, they become readers. If they use your products, they become users. When someone buys something from you, they become a customer.
- mtlynch 3mo ago
  OP here. Thanks for reading! > I feel that all the terms mentioned are useful in specific contexts. Web traffic brings visitors to your resource. If they read your blog, they become readers. If they use your products, they become users. When someone buys something from you, they become a customer. I'll respectfully disagree. I think those terms make sense if you're talking in general terms, but if you're an individual person talking about your work, they're generic catchall terms with better alternatives. Like, in concrete terms, let's say I publish funny cartoons on my website and sell prints of those cartoons. It doesn't make sense for me to say "web traffic brings visitors to my resource." What traffic? What resource? It would be more meaningful to say, "Visitors find my website through Google search."
  - neochief 3mo ago
    Totally agree with this one: being an indie business owner, you can do it however you want.
  - egypturnash 3mo ago
    Even more concrete, IMHO: "People find my comics through Google search. Some of them become fans and subscribe."
miyoji 3mo ago
The first paragraph seems to insinuate that "content" is replacing "art", but that doesn't seem at all related to what the author's actual work looks like, nor does it seem related to the thrust of the argument, which is about how descriptions of your work influence how you think about it. The entire blog looks more like "content" than David to my eyes, but maybe that's because most of the blog predates this shift in the author's thinking?
- mtlynch 3mo ago
  OP here. Thanks for reading! I'm not trying to argue that art is sacred and we have to hold it up over everything else, but I am joking that there is still an implicit boundary where we don't use "content" to refer to things that we respect highly. I think a lot of people that talk about "art" vs. "content" are talking about art vs. business, but I'm more arguing about big vs. small and aggregation vs. individuality. It makes sense for YouTube and Twitter and Facebook to refer to everything on the Internet as "content" because there's so much variety and those platforms are trying to capture all of it. But I just realized it's silly for me, an individual author to refer to my work as "content" when I could just as easily say "book" or "blog posts."
  - miyoji 3mo ago
    I got all of that, I just found the David example to be distracting from and unrelated to the more interesting argument that you're making, which I do agree with, and which I think you summed it up neatly here: > I just realized it's silly for me, an individual author to refer to my work as "content" when I could just as easily say "book" or "blog posts."
    - mtlynch 3mo ago
      I appreciate the critique! Sometimes when I'm thinking about a blog post, I fall in love with a joke I want to use, but then it constrains how I think about the topic. I still like the David example, but I'm too close to the post to have a balanced perspective, just having finished it today.
inerte 3mo ago
Related, Patrick H Willems did a long video about it and I recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAtbFwzZp6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAtbFwzZp6Y
sgarland 3mo ago
This resonates with me. I’ve always found the term annoying, because it felt like it was distilling artistic expression down to its most abstract form: content. If all you’re producing is abstract “content,” why should I participate? What makes it special?
- ryandrake 3mo ago
  I feel the same way. I want to watch movies and listen to music and read books! I don't want to "consume content." That phrase feels like it reduces my role to just be a generic pac-man gobbling up whatever bland grays dots of vague content are "created" and set down in front of me. That's not what it should be.
  - pastel8739 3mo ago
    I’m pretty sure that is exactly what your role is to the companies in the content business
- ClikeX 3mo ago
  People seem to be content with content.
- golly_ned 3mo ago
  I see that abstraction as the purpose of the word when viewing it from a 'business' context: when assessing businesses of the same kind, the actual thing that's being produced matters a lot less. I'd suppose that blog writers and video producers have a lot of the same kinds of business problems: how people can discover [the thing they create] and spread awareness of it or make money off it. In order to be able to discuss this category of business, it's useful for writers and video producers to be able to relate to each other by abstracting out the thing that actually makes them distinct and particular. I see it less as devaluing that special thing and more as a lens to put on or take off when certain audiences are interested in the 'non-special' aspects of running businesses based on that special thing.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
m0llusk 3mo ago
Ironic that this piece is mostly discontent.
serhack_ 3mo ago
after discovering most of my content has been scraped thousands of times, I don't have any willingness to continue posting my blog. Well, yes, I was expecting that (you know.. by publishing content on the net, everyone could read it -- and profit off!). I've some content for some months, including some analysis. I wish somebody could motivate me to publish them anyway.
- jasonshen 3mo ago
  Would you feel the same way about creating open source software that had been forked 1,000's of times and used without your knowledge? Are you interested in living in a world where everyone only does things if they feel they can directly capture the majority of the value created?
  - cwmoore 3mo ago
    I don’t think it is majority of the value created, but it might have to be a significant portion of the value expended to make it worthwhile at all.
  - tonyedgecombe 3mo ago
    When those forkers are large corporations then it probably should make most people think twice.
  - egypturnash 3mo ago
    There's a whole world of software that people are expected to pay for, one way or another. Some programmers choose to release their work for free. And some people use the paid software without paying. We call those people "pirates". Are you interested in living in a world where nobody can make a living off of their creative work?
    - account42 3mo ago
      I am interested in living in a world where creative works were not motivated by money and influenced by the incentives that come with that.
keiferski 3mo ago
I actually really like the term content creator, because it removes the artificial boundaries that come with being a writer, photographer, filmmaker, etc. and just lets you make stuff. The medium doesn't matter if you're a content creator, to a large extent. The alternative is "art" but that comes with a lot of other baggage that often sounds unintentionally pretentious, especially if you aren't actually creating paintings/sculptures/traditional/contemporary studio art. The word creative used to serve a similar purpose, but nowadays I think it sounds both blasé and pretentious. Yes, content does come with an expectation that you're creating things for an commercial audience; however, I think content is tied to media, and not merely any sort of created object. And so by extension you are participating in the global media sphere by making content, and not just painting for your own enjoyment. It’s also worth pointing out that while Michelangelo did think of himself as an artist and a sculptor and painter, those professions were basically tradesmen at the time. The concept of high art, in the purely non-economic way we think of today, didn’t come for centuries after his life.
- catapart 3mo ago
  I'm with you. I would prefer to be known as a "content creator" rather than a "woodworker" or "game developer" or "illustrator" or "writer" or "musician". Especially because all of that work tends to overlap all of the time. It feels so limiting to be described by a singular part of what I do. And I'm neurotic enough to want a 'comprehensive' word, rather than to slash myself to death in a description. I don't particularly like the term "content creator". It feels too blunt and sterile to be particularly useful. But it does seem to be generally useful in how wide-reachingly descriptive it is.
  - rc5150 3mo ago
    Anecdata, but I find it funny you mentioning woodworker and musician. I build guitars and I play them. There is /some/ overlap, but only at the end result of me playing the guitar I have built. If I were to distill either of the two disciplines into 'content' each endeavor would lose its own individual meaning for me. Being a musician has nothing to do with the output of working with wood, and likewise, my prowess on gouges, chisels, and saws is irrespective of my ability to write an interesting chord progression. Using a catch-all term to amalgamate the output of multiple specializations I think detracts from the results being, well... special. Just my .02c
arjie 3mo ago
> She said, “Oh, yeah, he always sends me great leads.” I think she meant it as a compliment, but she might as well have said, “Oh, yeah, he’s so good at spotting gullible marks.” That’s not what it means. It means that the vendor and you are a good fit for each other. The hard part in almost all these things is that two parties would both benefit if they had common knowledge but they don’t have common knowledge. The guy who puts the two together is useful. That’s who you describe as “sending great leads”. It’s not clear to me why this style of manufactured grievance writing is popular. The world is full of Pareto wins.
- mtlynch 3mo ago
  OP here. Thanks for reading! I'm having trouble understanding where we disagree. It seems like you're arguing that she's correct because it was helpful for the mutual acquaintance to refer me to this vendor, which I agree it is. My point is that the term "lead" implies that she's thinking about making the sale rather than serving me as her client. Do we disagree about the connotation of the word "lead?" As a more extreme example, if you went to a doctor for an illness and they said, "Wow, I'm going to make so much money treating you," I imagine you'd find it off-putting even if the doctor would only earn the money because they're doing a useful thing by treating your illness.
  - arjie 3mo ago
    Is your sentence supposed to be analogous? The difference between a great lead and a bad lead in that context would be sending a patient with a skin lesion to a dermatologist (great lead - “someone who will be happy with what I can do”) vs sending a patient with a brain tumor to a dermatologist (bad lead - “I can’t help this person”). In this context, a “great lead” is someone who has been appropriately prequalified so that both participants are going to benefit from the interaction. Naturally the grievance writing style pre-supposes extractive malice “oh the dermatologist is happy because they’re going to make money off me” rather than the more mundane “oh the dermatologist is happy because they don’t have to spend this time telling me they can’t help me”. In any case, far be it from me to tell you not to do this. As a content creator, you have certainly found writer-audience fit. It baffles me why, but this style is certainly popular on this website.
jun_lung 3mo ago
I think it helps to draw a clear boundary between what is "content" and what is "art", since they ultimately serve different purposes and have vastly different factors that go into their creation. To me, "content" is anything created with the goal of maximizing consumption, whereas "art" is an attempt to express or give form to some kind of idea or emotion. The lines blur when you get to things like film, where those two goals often compete, but it's pretty easy to put things into these two categories. And this isn't to say that "content creation" is any less valid than "creating art". There are plenty of "content creators" who know exactly what they are making at the end of the day (a product) and don't hide that fact or try to dress it up under the pretense of being anything more.
- nicbou 3mo ago
  What about really good information? Instructions? Guides?
abanana 3mo ago
I'd give this article multiple upvotes if I could. The first section did a great job of grabbing my attention. It feels like these days, all creative works are lumped together as "content", anything not brand-new and bleeding-edge is labelled "legacy" (I see this more on HN than anywhere), and everything is distilled down to "engagement" and "conversions". I hate business buzzword-jargon, the corporate in-group lingo, and I've also always disliked this use of the word "content". It's too generic - we might as well be calling it "stuff". As a child, I used to notice that there were some other kids who, upon hearing a word that was new to them, would immediately start using it incessantly, replacing the (sometimes richer) choice of words they'd thus far been brought up to use. Very often wrongly, by slightly misunderstanding the meaning, the context, or the word itself, and never checking first. It was clear how the choice of words used, or even the meaning of words, could subtly change within a small group. As I grew older I realised these people appeared to be in the majority, and that it showed how, via various methods of trying to sound clever or in-group signalling, changes in speech patterns spread out across the larger population. Anyway that's my view, now I'll go back to yelling at clouds.
advisedwang 3mo ago
I believe there is a material difference between "content" and other modes of creative output: content is defined by a pipeline. It is desired for it's recurring revenue. You could make the tackiest, most commercial and derivative musical, but it's still not content because it's just one. You could make the most eloquent, poetic and inventive podcast in the world, but so long as you are still doing weekly releases (with ads, plus an ad free patreon, of course) it is content. The tragedy is that we want artists to have reliable income, but the business models, incentives and consumption habits that come with the reliable output to provide that reliable income lead us to the ugliness that people blame on "content".
- WalterBright 3mo ago
  > The tragedy is that we want artists to have reliable income If artists create art that people are willing to pay for, great! I don't really want to pay artists for art I don't like. I remember when Nirvana suddenly became successful. Many in the local community called them "sellouts", which is quite unfair.
  - advisedwang 3mo ago
    I like the kind of output artists make when they work on individual creative projects. I don't really like the kind of output artists make when they feel they need to crank out something every week that has to have roughly equal appeal to the exact same audience. But the way the internet (and other mass media) scales means that only the latter can really have a business model and reliable income attached.
    - WalterBright 3mo ago
      Lots of people have erratic income, such as anyone who owns a business. The options are: 1. buy a Lambo, then get it reposessed 2. save/invest on the peaks
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        That's a problem.
xg15 3mo ago
> They can’t do what we do. And they hate us for it. You could make a plausible conspiracy theory that this was why so much capital was invested to develop generative AI: Maybe the holy grail of tech CEOs wasn't AGI, it was a web full of content without those annoying content creators...
- inigyou 3mo ago
  It was to replace workers. That's the holy dream of all capitalists - free revenue with no need for actual work or costs. In other words, becoming a landlord. But what is the land in the analogy? They can only hope to have something to hold onto, maybe a brand with goodwill or being the only one with a certain LLM.
hyperpape 3mo ago
Different people should use different words. I don't think a content creator would naturally describe themselves as a content creator. The word is useful for contexts where you need to generalize over all the different types, but that's not useful when speaking about yourself. So a writer says "I'm a writer", not "I'm a content creator." But writing this paragraph, I needed a word to generalize. P.S. The closest alternative word might be artist, but it's not quite right--some writers are artists and some aren't.
- golly_ned 3mo ago
  I agree, and the audience also matters too. A writer speaking to writers at a writing workshop? "I'm a writer." A writer at an independent business conference? "I'm a content creator", as a means to relate to people making videos, blog posts, photographs, tweets, etc. Some 'content creators' might also do: videos, blog posts, photographs, tweets, and a lot of other activity that drives the same business: getting user 'engagement' for sponsorship or advertising revenue.
glial 3mo ago
I appreciate this push-back. I keep a running list of words like this...content, product, device, experience, space, vehicle, resource, etc. I can't put my finger on why, but all of these make me distrust the speaker.
- ambicapter 3mo ago
  They're ambiguous words when there's no reason to not be more specific, so either the speaker is lazy or intentionally trying to muddy the waters.
- EPWN3D 3mo ago
  Yeah I have a similar list. Mine also includes "journey". As soon as a word gets adopted by MBAs to abstract away the real world, it gets added to my list. They're words that project the idea of a smart person but only to stupid people.
  - bombcar 3mo ago
    Mine is "thought leader" - I've yet to meet someone who calls themselves that who's had a useful thought.
    - sevenseacat 3mo ago
      I know a few people who unironically call themselves that. They sound awesome, but scratch beneath the surface of what they say... there's nothing there.
      - projektfu 3mo ago
        I'm a thought leader. I thought I should lead.
  - lemonberry 3mo ago
    I saw a news article recently where the headline was something about someone's "cancer journey". Maybe I'm old - only 51! - but I thought it was kind of a tasteless way to put it. That said, language is a malleable thing and no one needs my approval.
firefoxd 3mo ago
Content used to be a bad word, now kids want to become content creators when they grow up. I was hired at a job the very same day Google released their first Panda update[0]. This was the update that nuked all content farmers from search results. It was complete chaos, I sat in an empty cubicle, not knowing if I should stay or leave while the manager cursed and paced. Our ad revenue went from millions to zero, overnight. Unfortunately, they figured out a trick to game google. Which I guess meant I remained employed. [0]: https://idiallo.com/blog/content-is-bad https://idiallo.com/blog/content-is-bad
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- ekelsen 3mo ago
  Truly curious - why did you choose to work at a content farm?
  - elictronic 3mo ago
    Money Why would you work for Insurance, Defense, military, Amazon, killing kittens R Us. Money.
    - ecshafer 3mo ago
      Defense and Military you can want to work there for such nebulous ideas such as serving your nation, protecting your loved ones, security, etc. This would require you to actually believe in said abstract concepts like nationalism, community, family, culture, or truth, so that you actually want to defend your homeland though. This is easier to believe for me than the innumerable start ups that were making the world a better place via ad placement click through rates.
  - yellowpencil 3mo ago
    Im not the OP but most people outside of HN don't have multiple offers to job hop between FAANGs so the choice becomes "make money to survive or not".
podgorniy 3mo ago
Digital marketing creative investment into audience experience with goal of subsequent monetisation. Like and subscribe. -- I could not resist playing this game of words...
sajithdilshan 3mo ago
Surprisingly it was quite easy to read the blog post and well written. However, the author definitely has the gift of gab in writing in terms he can write about anything, but at the same time convey nothing meaningful
- ohyoutravel 3mo ago
  It’s AI slop, that’s why.
  - mtlynch 3mo ago
    OP here. I wrote the post myself with no AI (modulo grammar checks). What makes you think it's AI-generated?
    - ErroneousBosh 3mo ago
      I keep getting people saying they think my posts are AI-generated because I use hyphens in sentences (not M-dashes though, I can never remember the compose key for it), and because I use the term "load bearing" in a pisstakey way - like for instance, "yet another instance of load-bearing idiocy by management".
    - crtified 3mo ago
      The answer is quite patently that, in this brave new world, people with noticeable writing skill will face that false cry on a regular basis from the literary lowest-common-denominator.
    - xxs 3mo ago
      Not directly the answer, the only weird part (albeit not LLM alike attribution) would the use of 'reach out', after the negative attitude towards corpo-speak. "Contact", "call," "talk", "meet", etc. would be a lot better/normal/human words.
- NetOpWibby 3mo ago
  This is the most polite diss I've ever read
seydor 3mo ago
"content" is meant to trigger the novelty reward , thats why we don't get classics among content creators. But i think we all agreed that AI has put an end to this content-monetization era.
munificent 3mo ago
I make electronic music as a hobby, and I feel the same way about the term "producer". I understand the history behind where that term came from. (The people who were making musical decisions while standing behind the mixing board often were initially producers: people whose job it was to oversee the entire production and coordinate between the musicians, engineers, etc. Then when DJs at discotheques wanted longer versions of songs for dancefloors, remixes were invented. Producers took existing recordings and made longer versions. Then electronic dance music sort of evolved out of that.) But it still feels like such a soulless term. And most "producers" today are just sitting at home alone with a laptop and Ableton, so the role is very different than it was.
- WalterBright 3mo ago
  Michael Jackson was smart enough to hire Quincy Jones to produce his albums, and his work took a great leap forward as a result.
  - munificent 3mo ago
    Oh yeah, Quincy Jones was a genius. I listened to the whole "Off the Wall" album a while back with headphones on and it's just a sonic masterpiece.
    - WalterBright 3mo ago
      Yes one of my very favorite albums! I'd put it in my top 10 easy, and I listen to a lot of music. I still remember when a friend of mine dropped the needle and I heard it for the first time. The Thriller album is more popular, but I like Off The Wall better.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  It is a strange word now that you mention it, but is there another word for someone who makes electronic music offline?
  - munificent 3mo ago
zazuke 3mo ago
Great article, I see it is very similar. To me it's about learning, not "producing" — as Jason Fried said [1]: > I've never created content, I've written things down. > I've never created content, I've said things out loud. > I've never created content, I've recorded a video. > I've never created content, I've shown someone around. > I've never created content, I've pointed something out. [1] https://x.com/jasonfried/status/1831763756856307880 https://x.com/jasonfried/status/1831763756856307880
danielciocirlan 3mo ago
You “create content” if what you’re after is just money, and “content” is this malleable goo you have to produce and shove it down the algorithm so that it gets “traffic”, another form of goo that gets “funneled” and “converted” into money. In other words, it loses all (human) meaning. So yes, if you care at all, you shouldn’t “create content”. You should be writing essays, recording tutorials, training, music, conversations, etc. the kind of things you care about, for an audience whose attention you don’t take for granted, hoping that they too will care at least a little. If they do, they will pay you because they will rather part with money than part with your work.
- CodingJeebus 3mo ago
  There are all kinds of people out there generating meaningful content on their own terms that will never get picked up by the algorithm. I hate the content mills as much as anyone else, but the fact is that they exist because internet economy rewards them. The entire ecosystem incentivizes the soulless "goo" you describe over the meaningful work people are doing. Ice T said it best: "Don't hate the player, hate the game".
  - ktallett 3mo ago
    You don't need to do that as an activity. You can earn money doing something more useful.
    - TACIXAT 3mo ago
      Entertaining people is useful! In my opinion, it is probably one of the most ethical ways to make money. I think game development is in that category too. It is a very pure field where you are giving a consumer something they enjoy and seek out.
      - ktallett 3mo ago
        Ethical all depends on if what you are doing is really you. Whether you are being you. The same way with any creative pursuit. There is a significant difference between creativity for creativities sake and creativity marketed to exploit.
minusLik 3mo ago
Despite not quite being an artist, this resonated with me. This fits well in line with my favourite example of corpo-speak: "challenge" instead of "problem". Lately, I find myself replacing these two in my mind occasionally when reading them and the texts still don't change their meaning. It's a bit depressing watching language get shallow …
BLKNSLVR 3mo ago
Words matter. If you use words that remove meaning to describe a thing, then the thing itself will have have diminished meaning. It's the same with politicians using dehumanizing words to describe a group of people that they want those listening to think of as less than human; "illegals" as topical example. Ie. If you see yourself as a 'content creator' then the best you're going to be is a slop merchant. If you see yourself as an author or a writer then you at least have a chance at being a real artist, like Michaelangelo. It uses lots of words to make it's point which, for me, smacks of 'content' (I was expecting there to be a recipe at the end). They haven't stopped 'creating content' but they're attempting to stop calling it that. That's what I got out of it anyway. But then again I may just be salty that I'm not also a Don Draper (slop merchant).
tom_ 3mo ago
Not unrelated: https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2025/07/06/content-creator/ https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2025/07/06/content-creator/
pentagrama 3mo ago
[dead]
1-more 3mo ago
In Molly Lambert's "Jennaworld" podcast, she says that Playboy . com was the one of the first places to use "content" in the way it gets used these days. I definitely believe it; there are a lot of euphemisms in that world!
- account42 3mo ago
  "Asset" also has an, uhm, meaning in that world that is compatible with the bizspeak use.
MASNeo 3mo ago
I stopped creating (public) content when Facebook was launched. Totally missed I had to announce it here.
- kbelder 3mo ago
  I'm not producing any youtube videos. I should let everybody know. (Reminds me of https://theonion.com/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-televisi-1819565469/ https://theonion.com/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesn...)
- account42 3mo ago
  Did you also stop reading articles beyond their titles then or is that a more recent development?
ecshafer 3mo ago
Bill Gates is responsible for the proliferation of the term "content". We can add this to the list of his other crimes.
rkagerer 3mo ago
When I hear people use the generic word "content" it grinds my gears. It lacks any sort of deep meaning, and feels insulting when applied to genuine work that real humans poured their sweat, time, energy and passion into creating and perfecting. There's slop, and there's masterpiece. In which would you rather invest your time? (Either creating or 'consuming'?)
- nicbou 3mo ago
  It's one level of abstraction below "enrichment"
ngriffiths 3mo ago
> When I found myself using a corp-speak term, I questioned whether there was another word that felt more natural and communicated the same thing. In other scenarios the non "corp-speak" term feels kind of wrong and the "corp-speak" one is actually better though. I feel like this is all just a realization about what the goal of the business actually is and a realization of just how many different goals you could have. In this case it sounds like it's just to do some good writing, not to grow for the sake of making more money or whatever else. And that makes a huge difference in how you talk about it of course. Also if someone used the word "lead" I'd conclude that they... work in sales? How can that mean anything about whether they'll be helpful to you or not? Ok one more thought: sometimes the corp-speak feels way less stuck up than "oh actually, I'm a writer. I measure progress not from other people being willing to pay me some money, but in terms of my own highly refined taste. I have many leather-bound books, and..."
mcapodici 3mo ago
Yes I agree. Content is an empty word, and can mean anything, and sort of means nothing. I get why large corporations would want to use the term as they do everything in bulk and need a general term, but for a solo writer, youtuber, etc, better to think of it as the thing, e.g. "tutorial", "podcast", "exploration".
ghostbrainalpha 3mo ago
Stewart Lee did an hour of standup comedy on this same theme. It's called "Stewart Lee: Content Provider" and its hilarous. https://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x6i59y https://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x6i59y
sltr 3mo ago
Since 2002 Richard Stallman has spoken again using term "content" this way. > using the word as a noun to describe works and communications through which people have expressed themselves adopts an attitude you might rather avoid: it treats them as a commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it disparages all the works by subordinating them to the box that is full. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content
- Pentamerous 3mo ago
  The entirety of that compilation of words is worth a read. I recommend checking out "Artificial Intelligence", "Consume", "Consumer" and "Monetize", "Players" and "Product"
  - myrmidon 3mo ago
    Agree on a lot of this but not AI; it's already aged like milk. In my view, you don't get to dismiss LLMs as "stochastic parrots" unless you can argue with precisely defined terms why you ain't one.
    - kmeisthax 3mo ago
      Reading that article I feel almost like he's trying to defend the honor of the MIT AI Lab more than anything else. Fitting given he already died on that hill last time with Marvin Minsky.
- sebastiennight 3mo ago
  I was searching for this exact link to share here, and then DuckDuckGo surfaced your post. Reading this article a few years ago was extremely influential for me, as I had been feeling awkward for a while about how we (authors and videomakers) have been going from "sharing actionable information and advice" to feeding the platforms so we can get crumbs from their monetization efforts.
- globular-toast 3mo ago
1vuio0pswjnm7 3mo ago
Thank you to the author for questioning this ridiculous terminology "Content" implies there is something else, besides content, that is found on the www It's garbage, not The New Yorker, for example When data collection, surveilllance and advertising is the sole "business model" then traffic is the business goal, not "content" (The New Yorker does not rely 100% on advertising, it also has subscription revenue) "Content is king" but it is not an absolute requirement for traffic That's why "Big Tech" companies are intermediaries (middlemen), they do not need to create "content" Website operators without content have been buying traffic since the early years of the www The www is infested with middlemen with no content They profit from traffic Content makes good bait for traffic but Big Tech cannot charge subscriptions for it because it isn't theirs; they have to pay for a license
andai 3mo ago
So the main issue here is that corporate language is dehumanizing? Well, "human resources" might have been a hint, I suppose! I have to agree. It is dehumanizing. But, it's unfortunate, because the language of business is the language of business. We have this one. We don't have a separate, identically shaped one, made up of nicer sounding words. Would be nice if we did, though.
- rightbyte 3mo ago
  > We don't have a separate, identically shaped one, made up of nicer sounding words. We do though. It is a kind of virtue signaling to use the evil version. E.g. "Human Resources Department" is called "Personnel Department" in non evil business speak. To be fair "HR" is going the way of Thermos nowadays though.
assimpleaspossi 3mo ago
The article failed to use the word "amazing" to describe anything and everything.
theandrewbailey 3mo ago
Charlatan Wonder is one of the channels I watch on YouTube. For the past few years he's been signing off every one of his videos with a rant against "content" that largely mirrors this blog post. He tells people to not describe what they do as content. It is art. Content was a word made up to feed your art into a slop machine that makes someone else's line go up. https://m.youtube.com/@CharlatanWonder https://m.youtube.com/@CharlatanWonder
paulcole 3mo ago
To me, this (whether or not “content” is a good word to use) is very similar to Comic Sans discourse. The stronger you feel about it and the more you seem to enjoy sharing your opinions on it, the less interesting you become.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Does this mean you think you are uninteresting?
  - paulcole 3mo ago
    Absolutely!
21asdffdsa12 3mo ago
He who packs himself into a container to please the merchant - is a square.
- imaginationra 3mo ago
  That's a great one!
xtiansimon 3mo ago
I’m reminded of other writers, like Seth Godin. He takes a different tone when he speaks of the privilege to share ideas with others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Godin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Godin
toasty228 3mo ago
"Content" is usually a perfectly good term, at least in most contexts people use it for, shapeless slop that fills the void of the empty vessels most people are
0x4e 3mo ago
I wonder if anyone has thoughts on the future of “content”? I ask this because of the general adoption of LLMs for information seeking. On one side, I think that those who manage to generate a trusted audience can benefit from this as LLMs generate generic content. On the other side, people could get so used to generic content — like Tik-Toks — that it will only be a handful of people coming to those generating thoughtful content.
- lopis 3mo ago
  In a way, the YouTube channels I follow are like cable: they produce content of different genres and topics on a regular basis and serve it to me. There's another way to use YouTube, though: you can search for a video and find what you want exactly. The way I use video is unlikely to be completely taken over by AI. Sure, producers might use some AI along the way, but people will continue valuing genuine programming, be it educational, comedy, news etc. But I expect the second kind of content, the one you search for, to be mostly consumed by AI video and AI summaries as time goes on.
Lerc 3mo ago
It's an odd thing, because the reason the word content is used is to permit diversity, but it seems to be widely rejected by those who claim to value diversity. It's a good man who can bring home the sculpture that his wife likes at the end of his workday. But why does it have to be him, and his wife, and a sculpture. Surely the merit is in the person who brings the content that their partner likes, no matter where or when, or what.
CatalystPz 3mo ago
man!, I've always struggled with creating content, volume and frequency of creating it has been an issue for me
Dependance 3mo ago
David is the first instance of "awe" I had in my life. I truly feel blessed to have had that qualia, even if for a few seconds, to witness something larger-than-life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awe The fact that so many people report awe feelings with David hints at something very grand about Michaelangelo, or even humanity at large. Did I feel that way because I did not expect the statute to be so large ? The strength displayed to be so soft ? Was there something in the air ? The only other instance I had of such a feeling was at the Lake Louise, in Alberta (Canada). In both moments, I could remember the thought of seeing something that could not be in any point better than it is.
- joenot443 3mo ago
  Lake Louise is absolutely breathtaking. Highly encourage everyone to give it a visit if they can.
pastel8739 3mo ago
https://youtu.be/pQvrap19Eng https://youtu.be/pQvrap19Eng
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
jrm4 3mo ago
FWIW, I love the poetic way Pusha T of the Clipse addressed this in POV "They content create, I despise that; I create content, then they tries that.."
Iris595 3mo ago
[flagged]
zuzululu 3mo ago
> The first time I saw Michelangelo’s David in person, I wept. Never in my life have I witnessed a more beautiful piece of content. I stopped reading at this sentence and couldn't take the rest of the article seriously. It felt .... pretentious and self centered.
akurilin 3mo ago
Greg Puciato's Fuck Content album was expressing a similar sentiment: https://gregpuciato.bandcamp.com/album/fuck-content https://gregpuciato.bandcamp.com/album/fuck-content
rekpero 3mo ago
[flagged]
replatformradar 3mo ago
Finally, someone said it: readers are people, not “traffic,” and writing isn’t a “content asset.” Somewhere, a LinkedIn growth hacker just felt a disturbance in the funnel.

312 points by mtlynch 3mo ago

A good point overall. It's skin-deep, though. Do you think a catch-all name is useful for something like content? Is it only distasteful on the internet/TV/etc. because of the negative impacts of mass-production and commoditisation, or is the idea itself inherently distasteful?

azeirah 3mo ago
The author addresses this, no? > But I did notice an immediate change, especially with words like “traffic.” Traffic makes me feel like I’m just throwing out flypaper and measuring whatever sticks. When I describe website visitors as “readers,” it reminds me that these are real people who have literally billions of other things they could be reading that day, but they’re choosing to spend some of their limited time with me.
mtlynch 3mo ago
OP here. Thanks for reading! I don't really have anything against the existence of the catchall term "content." Like, I don't expect the CEO of YouTube to say, "music, short film, art, comedy, journalism, ..., creators" every time he talks about YouTube users. It makes sense from their perspective to bucket everything into "content." The thing I found interesting was just that the language had crossed over to people where it doesn't make sense to bucket everything. If I'm a blogger, I can just say "blogger" and it's more meaningful than "content creator" but I think the people running small businesses or doing creative work have needlessly adopted the big bucket terminology of "content."
- inigyou 3mo ago
  It's still weird the YouTube CEO would say "content" instead of "videos"
nancyminusone 3mo ago
Stanley Kubrick, Kane Parsons, and Mr. Beast walk into a bar. Bartender says, "Sorry,we don't serve content creators here." Who gets kicked out?
- c-hendricks 3mo ago
  Kane Parsons is 20 years old (Sorry to use a meme but I couldn't drop this oddly perfect opportunity. Also Kane Parsons is 21 years old)
  - Imustaskforhelp 3mo ago
    Well done, my first thought after I realized what you did was the Slow clap meme https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1N5lZw7e78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1N5lZw7e78

pinter69 3mo ago

For me the term users sometimes sounds similar to traffic. I prefer customers - that you serve with your product.

krupan 3mo ago
The term "user" maybe made sense before any software was commercialized. It differentiated the programmer of the software from the non-programmer that used the software. Even then it was sometimes used derogatorily (especially when people were sneered at as "Lusers"). In the original Tron the Good Guys had to fight for the users. Customer is a much nicer term. Words do matter.
inigyou 3mo ago
Even in a commercial context they aren't the same. The user is who sits in front of the screen, and the customer is who you have to please to make money.
- pinter69 3mo ago
  You're right. But, nowadays these terms get more context meaning. For example - a user is someone who platforms sell their data to customers. Or a user is someone gullible you trick into making decisions that are good for the business. The literal term of someone who is using your system/product has evolved.

neochief 3mo ago

I feel that all the terms mentioned are useful in specific contexts. Web traffic brings visitors to your resource. If they read your blog, they become readers. If they use your products, they become users. When someone buys something from you, they become a customer.

mtlynch 3mo ago
OP here. Thanks for reading! > I feel that all the terms mentioned are useful in specific contexts. Web traffic brings visitors to your resource. If they read your blog, they become readers. If they use your products, they become users. When someone buys something from you, they become a customer. I'll respectfully disagree. I think those terms make sense if you're talking in general terms, but if you're an individual person talking about your work, they're generic catchall terms with better alternatives. Like, in concrete terms, let's say I publish funny cartoons on my website and sell prints of those cartoons. It doesn't make sense for me to say "web traffic brings visitors to my resource." What traffic? What resource? It would be more meaningful to say, "Visitors find my website through Google search."
- neochief 3mo ago
  Totally agree with this one: being an indie business owner, you can do it however you want.
- egypturnash 3mo ago
  Even more concrete, IMHO: "People find my comics through Google search. Some of them become fans and subscribe."

miyoji 3mo ago

The first paragraph seems to insinuate that "content" is replacing "art", but that doesn't seem at all related to what the author's actual work looks like, nor does it seem related to the thrust of the argument, which is about how descriptions of your work influence how you think about it. The entire blog looks more like "content" than David to my eyes, but maybe that's because most of the blog predates this shift in the author's thinking?

mtlynch 3mo ago
OP here. Thanks for reading! I'm not trying to argue that art is sacred and we have to hold it up over everything else, but I am joking that there is still an implicit boundary where we don't use "content" to refer to things that we respect highly. I think a lot of people that talk about "art" vs. "content" are talking about art vs. business, but I'm more arguing about big vs. small and aggregation vs. individuality. It makes sense for YouTube and Twitter and Facebook to refer to everything on the Internet as "content" because there's so much variety and those platforms are trying to capture all of it. But I just realized it's silly for me, an individual author to refer to my work as "content" when I could just as easily say "book" or "blog posts."
- miyoji 3mo ago
  I got all of that, I just found the David example to be distracting from and unrelated to the more interesting argument that you're making, which I do agree with, and which I think you summed it up neatly here: > I just realized it's silly for me, an individual author to refer to my work as "content" when I could just as easily say "book" or "blog posts."
  - mtlynch 3mo ago
    I appreciate the critique! Sometimes when I'm thinking about a blog post, I fall in love with a joke I want to use, but then it constrains how I think about the topic. I still like the David example, but I'm too close to the post to have a balanced perspective, just having finished it today.

inerte 3mo ago

Related, Patrick H Willems did a long video about it and I recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAtbFwzZp6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAtbFwzZp6Y

sgarland 3mo ago

This resonates with me. I’ve always found the term annoying, because it felt like it was distilling artistic expression down to its most abstract form: content. If all you’re producing is abstract “content,” why should I participate? What makes it special?

ryandrake 3mo ago
I feel the same way. I want to watch movies and listen to music and read books! I don't want to "consume content." That phrase feels like it reduces my role to just be a generic pac-man gobbling up whatever bland grays dots of vague content are "created" and set down in front of me. That's not what it should be.
- pastel8739 3mo ago
  I’m pretty sure that is exactly what your role is to the companies in the content business
ClikeX 3mo ago
People seem to be content with content.
golly_ned 3mo ago
I see that abstraction as the purpose of the word when viewing it from a 'business' context: when assessing businesses of the same kind, the actual thing that's being produced matters a lot less. I'd suppose that blog writers and video producers have a lot of the same kinds of business problems: how people can discover [the thing they create] and spread awareness of it or make money off it. In order to be able to discuss this category of business, it's useful for writers and video producers to be able to relate to each other by abstracting out the thing that actually makes them distinct and particular. I see it less as devaluing that special thing and more as a lens to put on or take off when certain audiences are interested in the 'non-special' aspects of running businesses based on that special thing.
- inigyou 3mo ago

m0llusk 3mo ago

Ironic that this piece is mostly discontent.

serhack_ 3mo ago

after discovering most of my content has been scraped thousands of times, I don't have any willingness to continue posting my blog. Well, yes, I was expecting that (you know.. by publishing content on the net, everyone could read it -- and profit off!). I've some content for some months, including some analysis. I wish somebody could motivate me to publish them anyway.

jasonshen 3mo ago
Would you feel the same way about creating open source software that had been forked 1,000's of times and used without your knowledge? Are you interested in living in a world where everyone only does things if they feel they can directly capture the majority of the value created?
- cwmoore 3mo ago
  I don’t think it is majority of the value created, but it might have to be a significant portion of the value expended to make it worthwhile at all.
- tonyedgecombe 3mo ago
  When those forkers are large corporations then it probably should make most people think twice.
- egypturnash 3mo ago
  There's a whole world of software that people are expected to pay for, one way or another. Some programmers choose to release their work for free. And some people use the paid software without paying. We call those people "pirates". Are you interested in living in a world where nobody can make a living off of their creative work?
  - account42 3mo ago
    I am interested in living in a world where creative works were not motivated by money and influenced by the incentives that come with that.

keiferski 3mo ago

I actually really like the term content creator, because it removes the artificial boundaries that come with being a writer, photographer, filmmaker, etc. and just lets you make stuff. The medium doesn't matter if you're a content creator, to a large extent. The alternative is "art" but that comes with a lot of other baggage that often sounds unintentionally pretentious, especially if you aren't actually creating paintings/sculptures/traditional/contemporary studio art. The word creative used to serve a similar purpose, but nowadays I think it sounds both blasé and pretentious. Yes, content does come with an expectation that you're creating things for an commercial audience; however, I think content is tied to media, and not merely any sort of created object. And so by extension you are participating in the global media sphere by making content, and not just painting for your own enjoyment. It’s also worth pointing out that while Michelangelo did think of himself as an artist and a sculptor and painter, those professions were basically tradesmen at the time. The concept of high art, in the purely non-economic way we think of today, didn’t come for centuries after his life.

catapart 3mo ago
I'm with you. I would prefer to be known as a "content creator" rather than a "woodworker" or "game developer" or "illustrator" or "writer" or "musician". Especially because all of that work tends to overlap all of the time. It feels so limiting to be described by a singular part of what I do. And I'm neurotic enough to want a 'comprehensive' word, rather than to slash myself to death in a description. I don't particularly like the term "content creator". It feels too blunt and sterile to be particularly useful. But it does seem to be generally useful in how wide-reachingly descriptive it is.
- rc5150 3mo ago
  Anecdata, but I find it funny you mentioning woodworker and musician. I build guitars and I play them. There is /some/ overlap, but only at the end result of me playing the guitar I have built. If I were to distill either of the two disciplines into 'content' each endeavor would lose its own individual meaning for me. Being a musician has nothing to do with the output of working with wood, and likewise, my prowess on gouges, chisels, and saws is irrespective of my ability to write an interesting chord progression. Using a catch-all term to amalgamate the output of multiple specializations I think detracts from the results being, well... special. Just my .02c

arjie 3mo ago

> She said, “Oh, yeah, he always sends me great leads.” I think she meant it as a compliment, but she might as well have said, “Oh, yeah, he’s so good at spotting gullible marks.” That’s not what it means. It means that the vendor and you are a good fit for each other. The hard part in almost all these things is that two parties would both benefit if they had common knowledge but they don’t have common knowledge. The guy who puts the two together is useful. That’s who you describe as “sending great leads”. It’s not clear to me why this style of manufactured grievance writing is popular. The world is full of Pareto wins.

mtlynch 3mo ago
OP here. Thanks for reading! I'm having trouble understanding where we disagree. It seems like you're arguing that she's correct because it was helpful for the mutual acquaintance to refer me to this vendor, which I agree it is. My point is that the term "lead" implies that she's thinking about making the sale rather than serving me as her client. Do we disagree about the connotation of the word "lead?" As a more extreme example, if you went to a doctor for an illness and they said, "Wow, I'm going to make so much money treating you," I imagine you'd find it off-putting even if the doctor would only earn the money because they're doing a useful thing by treating your illness.
- arjie 3mo ago
  Is your sentence supposed to be analogous? The difference between a great lead and a bad lead in that context would be sending a patient with a skin lesion to a dermatologist (great lead - “someone who will be happy with what I can do”) vs sending a patient with a brain tumor to a dermatologist (bad lead - “I can’t help this person”). In this context, a “great lead” is someone who has been appropriately prequalified so that both participants are going to benefit from the interaction. Naturally the grievance writing style pre-supposes extractive malice “oh the dermatologist is happy because they’re going to make money off me” rather than the more mundane “oh the dermatologist is happy because they don’t have to spend this time telling me they can’t help me”. In any case, far be it from me to tell you not to do this. As a content creator, you have certainly found writer-audience fit. It baffles me why, but this style is certainly popular on this website.

jun_lung 3mo ago

I think it helps to draw a clear boundary between what is "content" and what is "art", since they ultimately serve different purposes and have vastly different factors that go into their creation. To me, "content" is anything created with the goal of maximizing consumption, whereas "art" is an attempt to express or give form to some kind of idea or emotion. The lines blur when you get to things like film, where those two goals often compete, but it's pretty easy to put things into these two categories. And this isn't to say that "content creation" is any less valid than "creating art". There are plenty of "content creators" who know exactly what they are making at the end of the day (a product) and don't hide that fact or try to dress it up under the pretense of being anything more.

nicbou 3mo ago
What about really good information? Instructions? Guides?

abanana 3mo ago

I'd give this article multiple upvotes if I could. The first section did a great job of grabbing my attention. It feels like these days, all creative works are lumped together as "content", anything not brand-new and bleeding-edge is labelled "legacy" (I see this more on HN than anywhere), and everything is distilled down to "engagement" and "conversions". I hate business buzzword-jargon, the corporate in-group lingo, and I've also always disliked this use of the word "content". It's too generic - we might as well be calling it "stuff". As a child, I used to notice that there were some other kids who, upon hearing a word that was new to them, would immediately start using it incessantly, replacing the (sometimes richer) choice of words they'd thus far been brought up to use. Very often wrongly, by slightly misunderstanding the meaning, the context, or the word itself, and never checking first. It was clear how the choice of words used, or even the meaning of words, could subtly change within a small group. As I grew older I realised these people appeared to be in the majority, and that it showed how, via various methods of trying to sound clever or in-group signalling, changes in speech patterns spread out across the larger population. Anyway that's my view, now I'll go back to yelling at clouds.

advisedwang 3mo ago

I believe there is a material difference between "content" and other modes of creative output: content is defined by a pipeline. It is desired for it's recurring revenue. You could make the tackiest, most commercial and derivative musical, but it's still not content because it's just one. You could make the most eloquent, poetic and inventive podcast in the world, but so long as you are still doing weekly releases (with ads, plus an ad free patreon, of course) it is content. The tragedy is that we want artists to have reliable income, but the business models, incentives and consumption habits that come with the reliable output to provide that reliable income lead us to the ugliness that people blame on "content".

WalterBright 3mo ago
> The tragedy is that we want artists to have reliable income If artists create art that people are willing to pay for, great! I don't really want to pay artists for art I don't like. I remember when Nirvana suddenly became successful. Many in the local community called them "sellouts", which is quite unfair.
- advisedwang 3mo ago
  I like the kind of output artists make when they work on individual creative projects. I don't really like the kind of output artists make when they feel they need to crank out something every week that has to have roughly equal appeal to the exact same audience. But the way the internet (and other mass media) scales means that only the latter can really have a business model and reliable income attached.
  - WalterBright 3mo ago
    Lots of people have erratic income, such as anyone who owns a business. The options are: 1. buy a Lambo, then get it reposessed 2. save/invest on the peaks
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      That's a problem.

xg15 3mo ago

> They can’t do what we do. And they hate us for it. You could make a plausible conspiracy theory that this was why so much capital was invested to develop generative AI: Maybe the holy grail of tech CEOs wasn't AGI, it was a web full of content without those annoying content creators...

inigyou 3mo ago
It was to replace workers. That's the holy dream of all capitalists - free revenue with no need for actual work or costs. In other words, becoming a landlord. But what is the land in the analogy? They can only hope to have something to hold onto, maybe a brand with goodwill or being the only one with a certain LLM.

hyperpape 3mo ago

Different people should use different words. I don't think a content creator would naturally describe themselves as a content creator. The word is useful for contexts where you need to generalize over all the different types, but that's not useful when speaking about yourself. So a writer says "I'm a writer", not "I'm a content creator." But writing this paragraph, I needed a word to generalize. P.S. The closest alternative word might be artist, but it's not quite right--some writers are artists and some aren't.

golly_ned 3mo ago
I agree, and the audience also matters too. A writer speaking to writers at a writing workshop? "I'm a writer." A writer at an independent business conference? "I'm a content creator", as a means to relate to people making videos, blog posts, photographs, tweets, etc. Some 'content creators' might also do: videos, blog posts, photographs, tweets, and a lot of other activity that drives the same business: getting user 'engagement' for sponsorship or advertising revenue.

glial 3mo ago

I appreciate this push-back. I keep a running list of words like this...content, product, device, experience, space, vehicle, resource, etc. I can't put my finger on why, but all of these make me distrust the speaker.

ambicapter 3mo ago
They're ambiguous words when there's no reason to not be more specific, so either the speaker is lazy or intentionally trying to muddy the waters.
EPWN3D 3mo ago
Yeah I have a similar list. Mine also includes "journey". As soon as a word gets adopted by MBAs to abstract away the real world, it gets added to my list. They're words that project the idea of a smart person but only to stupid people.
- bombcar 3mo ago
  Mine is "thought leader" - I've yet to meet someone who calls themselves that who's had a useful thought.
  - sevenseacat 3mo ago
    I know a few people who unironically call themselves that. They sound awesome, but scratch beneath the surface of what they say... there's nothing there.
    - projektfu 3mo ago
      I'm a thought leader. I thought I should lead.
- lemonberry 3mo ago
  I saw a news article recently where the headline was something about someone's "cancer journey". Maybe I'm old - only 51! - but I thought it was kind of a tasteless way to put it. That said, language is a malleable thing and no one needs my approval.

firefoxd 3mo ago

Content used to be a bad word, now kids want to become content creators when they grow up. I was hired at a job the very same day Google released their first Panda update[0]. This was the update that nuked all content farmers from search results. It was complete chaos, I sat in an empty cubicle, not knowing if I should stay or leave while the manager cursed and paced. Our ad revenue went from millions to zero, overnight. Unfortunately, they figured out a trick to game google. Which I guess meant I remained employed. [0]: https://idiallo.com/blog/content-is-bad https://idiallo.com/blog/content-is-bad

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
ekelsen 3mo ago
Truly curious - why did you choose to work at a content farm?
- elictronic 3mo ago
  Money Why would you work for Insurance, Defense, military, Amazon, killing kittens R Us. Money.
  - ecshafer 3mo ago
    Defense and Military you can want to work there for such nebulous ideas such as serving your nation, protecting your loved ones, security, etc. This would require you to actually believe in said abstract concepts like nationalism, community, family, culture, or truth, so that you actually want to defend your homeland though. This is easier to believe for me than the innumerable start ups that were making the world a better place via ad placement click through rates.
- yellowpencil 3mo ago
  Im not the OP but most people outside of HN don't have multiple offers to job hop between FAANGs so the choice becomes "make money to survive or not".

podgorniy 3mo ago

Digital marketing creative investment into audience experience with goal of subsequent monetisation. Like and subscribe. -- I could not resist playing this game of words...

sajithdilshan 3mo ago

Surprisingly it was quite easy to read the blog post and well written. However, the author definitely has the gift of gab in writing in terms he can write about anything, but at the same time convey nothing meaningful

ohyoutravel 3mo ago
It’s AI slop, that’s why.
- mtlynch 3mo ago
  OP here. I wrote the post myself with no AI (modulo grammar checks). What makes you think it's AI-generated?
  - ErroneousBosh 3mo ago
    I keep getting people saying they think my posts are AI-generated because I use hyphens in sentences (not M-dashes though, I can never remember the compose key for it), and because I use the term "load bearing" in a pisstakey way - like for instance, "yet another instance of load-bearing idiocy by management".
  - crtified 3mo ago
    The answer is quite patently that, in this brave new world, people with noticeable writing skill will face that false cry on a regular basis from the literary lowest-common-denominator.
  - xxs 3mo ago
    Not directly the answer, the only weird part (albeit not LLM alike attribution) would the use of 'reach out', after the negative attitude towards corpo-speak. "Contact", "call," "talk", "meet", etc. would be a lot better/normal/human words.
NetOpWibby 3mo ago
This is the most polite diss I've ever read

seydor 3mo ago

"content" is meant to trigger the novelty reward , thats why we don't get classics among content creators. But i think we all agreed that AI has put an end to this content-monetization era.

munificent 3mo ago

I make electronic music as a hobby, and I feel the same way about the term "producer". I understand the history behind where that term came from. (The people who were making musical decisions while standing behind the mixing board often were initially producers: people whose job it was to oversee the entire production and coordinate between the musicians, engineers, etc. Then when DJs at discotheques wanted longer versions of songs for dancefloors, remixes were invented. Producers took existing recordings and made longer versions. Then electronic dance music sort of evolved out of that.) But it still feels like such a soulless term. And most "producers" today are just sitting at home alone with a laptop and Ableton, so the role is very different than it was.

WalterBright 3mo ago
Michael Jackson was smart enough to hire Quincy Jones to produce his albums, and his work took a great leap forward as a result.
- munificent 3mo ago
  Oh yeah, Quincy Jones was a genius. I listened to the whole "Off the Wall" album a while back with headphones on and it's just a sonic masterpiece.
  - WalterBright 3mo ago
    Yes one of my very favorite albums! I'd put it in my top 10 easy, and I listen to a lot of music. I still remember when a friend of mine dropped the needle and I heard it for the first time. The Thriller album is more popular, but I like Off The Wall better.
inigyou 3mo ago
It is a strange word now that you mention it, but is there another word for someone who makes electronic music offline?
- munificent 3mo ago

zazuke 3mo ago

Great article, I see it is very similar. To me it's about learning, not "producing" — as Jason Fried said [1]: > I've never created content, I've written things down. > I've never created content, I've said things out loud. > I've never created content, I've recorded a video. > I've never created content, I've shown someone around. > I've never created content, I've pointed something out. [1] https://x.com/jasonfried/status/1831763756856307880 https://x.com/jasonfried/status/1831763756856307880

danielciocirlan 3mo ago

You “create content” if what you’re after is just money, and “content” is this malleable goo you have to produce and shove it down the algorithm so that it gets “traffic”, another form of goo that gets “funneled” and “converted” into money. In other words, it loses all (human) meaning. So yes, if you care at all, you shouldn’t “create content”. You should be writing essays, recording tutorials, training, music, conversations, etc. the kind of things you care about, for an audience whose attention you don’t take for granted, hoping that they too will care at least a little. If they do, they will pay you because they will rather part with money than part with your work.

CodingJeebus 3mo ago
There are all kinds of people out there generating meaningful content on their own terms that will never get picked up by the algorithm. I hate the content mills as much as anyone else, but the fact is that they exist because internet economy rewards them. The entire ecosystem incentivizes the soulless "goo" you describe over the meaningful work people are doing. Ice T said it best: "Don't hate the player, hate the game".
- ktallett 3mo ago
  You don't need to do that as an activity. You can earn money doing something more useful.
  - TACIXAT 3mo ago
    Entertaining people is useful! In my opinion, it is probably one of the most ethical ways to make money. I think game development is in that category too. It is a very pure field where you are giving a consumer something they enjoy and seek out.
    - ktallett 3mo ago
      Ethical all depends on if what you are doing is really you. Whether you are being you. The same way with any creative pursuit. There is a significant difference between creativity for creativities sake and creativity marketed to exploit.

minusLik 3mo ago

Despite not quite being an artist, this resonated with me. This fits well in line with my favourite example of corpo-speak: "challenge" instead of "problem". Lately, I find myself replacing these two in my mind occasionally when reading them and the texts still don't change their meaning. It's a bit depressing watching language get shallow …

BLKNSLVR 3mo ago

Words matter. If you use words that remove meaning to describe a thing, then the thing itself will have have diminished meaning. It's the same with politicians using dehumanizing words to describe a group of people that they want those listening to think of as less than human; "illegals" as topical example. Ie. If you see yourself as a 'content creator' then the best you're going to be is a slop merchant. If you see yourself as an author or a writer then you at least have a chance at being a real artist, like Michaelangelo. It uses lots of words to make it's point which, for me, smacks of 'content' (I was expecting there to be a recipe at the end). They haven't stopped 'creating content' but they're attempting to stop calling it that. That's what I got out of it anyway. But then again I may just be salty that I'm not also a Don Draper (slop merchant).

tom_ 3mo ago

Not unrelated: https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2025/07/06/content-creator/ https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2025/07/06/content-creator/

pentagrama 3mo ago

[dead]

1-more 3mo ago

In Molly Lambert's "Jennaworld" podcast, she says that Playboy . com was the one of the first places to use "content" in the way it gets used these days. I definitely believe it; there are a lot of euphemisms in that world!

account42 3mo ago
"Asset" also has an, uhm, meaning in that world that is compatible with the bizspeak use.

MASNeo 3mo ago

I stopped creating (public) content when Facebook was launched. Totally missed I had to announce it here.

kbelder 3mo ago
I'm not producing any youtube videos. I should let everybody know. (Reminds me of https://theonion.com/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-televisi-1819565469/ https://theonion.com/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesn...)
account42 3mo ago
Did you also stop reading articles beyond their titles then or is that a more recent development?

ecshafer 3mo ago

Bill Gates is responsible for the proliferation of the term "content". We can add this to the list of his other crimes.

rkagerer 3mo ago

When I hear people use the generic word "content" it grinds my gears. It lacks any sort of deep meaning, and feels insulting when applied to genuine work that real humans poured their sweat, time, energy and passion into creating and perfecting. There's slop, and there's masterpiece. In which would you rather invest your time? (Either creating or 'consuming'?)

nicbou 3mo ago
It's one level of abstraction below "enrichment"

ngriffiths 3mo ago

> When I found myself using a corp-speak term, I questioned whether there was another word that felt more natural and communicated the same thing. In other scenarios the non "corp-speak" term feels kind of wrong and the "corp-speak" one is actually better though. I feel like this is all just a realization about what the goal of the business actually is and a realization of just how many different goals you could have. In this case it sounds like it's just to do some good writing, not to grow for the sake of making more money or whatever else. And that makes a huge difference in how you talk about it of course. Also if someone used the word "lead" I'd conclude that they... work in sales? How can that mean anything about whether they'll be helpful to you or not? Ok one more thought: sometimes the corp-speak feels way less stuck up than "oh actually, I'm a writer. I measure progress not from other people being willing to pay me some money, but in terms of my own highly refined taste. I have many leather-bound books, and..."

mcapodici 3mo ago

Yes I agree. Content is an empty word, and can mean anything, and sort of means nothing. I get why large corporations would want to use the term as they do everything in bulk and need a general term, but for a solo writer, youtuber, etc, better to think of it as the thing, e.g. "tutorial", "podcast", "exploration".

ghostbrainalpha 3mo ago

Stewart Lee did an hour of standup comedy on this same theme. It's called "Stewart Lee: Content Provider" and its hilarous. https://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x6i59y https://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x6i59y

sltr 3mo ago

Since 2002 Richard Stallman has spoken again using term "content" this way. > using the word as a noun to describe works and communications through which people have expressed themselves adopts an attitude you might rather avoid: it treats them as a commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it disparages all the works by subordinating them to the box that is full. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content

Pentamerous 3mo ago
The entirety of that compilation of words is worth a read. I recommend checking out "Artificial Intelligence", "Consume", "Consumer" and "Monetize", "Players" and "Product"
- myrmidon 3mo ago
  Agree on a lot of this but not AI; it's already aged like milk. In my view, you don't get to dismiss LLMs as "stochastic parrots" unless you can argue with precisely defined terms why you ain't one.
  - kmeisthax 3mo ago
    Reading that article I feel almost like he's trying to defend the honor of the MIT AI Lab more than anything else. Fitting given he already died on that hill last time with Marvin Minsky.
sebastiennight 3mo ago
I was searching for this exact link to share here, and then DuckDuckGo surfaced your post. Reading this article a few years ago was extremely influential for me, as I had been feeling awkward for a while about how we (authors and videomakers) have been going from "sharing actionable information and advice" to feeding the platforms so we can get crumbs from their monetization efforts.
globular-toast 3mo ago

1vuio0pswjnm7 3mo ago

Thank you to the author for questioning this ridiculous terminology "Content" implies there is something else, besides content, that is found on the www It's garbage, not The New Yorker, for example When data collection, surveilllance and advertising is the sole "business model" then traffic is the business goal, not "content" (The New Yorker does not rely 100% on advertising, it also has subscription revenue) "Content is king" but it is not an absolute requirement for traffic That's why "Big Tech" companies are intermediaries (middlemen), they do not need to create "content" Website operators without content have been buying traffic since the early years of the www The www is infested with middlemen with no content They profit from traffic Content makes good bait for traffic but Big Tech cannot charge subscriptions for it because it isn't theirs; they have to pay for a license

andai 3mo ago

So the main issue here is that corporate language is dehumanizing? Well, "human resources" might have been a hint, I suppose! I have to agree. It is dehumanizing. But, it's unfortunate, because the language of business is the language of business. We have this one. We don't have a separate, identically shaped one, made up of nicer sounding words. Would be nice if we did, though.

rightbyte 3mo ago
> We don't have a separate, identically shaped one, made up of nicer sounding words. We do though. It is a kind of virtue signaling to use the evil version. E.g. "Human Resources Department" is called "Personnel Department" in non evil business speak. To be fair "HR" is going the way of Thermos nowadays though.

assimpleaspossi 3mo ago

The article failed to use the word "amazing" to describe anything and everything.

theandrewbailey 3mo ago

Charlatan Wonder is one of the channels I watch on YouTube. For the past few years he's been signing off every one of his videos with a rant against "content" that largely mirrors this blog post. He tells people to not describe what they do as content. It is art. Content was a word made up to feed your art into a slop machine that makes someone else's line go up. https://m.youtube.com/@CharlatanWonder https://m.youtube.com/@CharlatanWonder

paulcole 3mo ago

To me, this (whether or not “content” is a good word to use) is very similar to Comic Sans discourse. The stronger you feel about it and the more you seem to enjoy sharing your opinions on it, the less interesting you become.

inigyou 3mo ago
Does this mean you think you are uninteresting?
- paulcole 3mo ago
  Absolutely!

21asdffdsa12 3mo ago

He who packs himself into a container to please the merchant - is a square.

imaginationra 3mo ago
That's a great one!

xtiansimon 3mo ago

I’m reminded of other writers, like Seth Godin. He takes a different tone when he speaks of the privilege to share ideas with others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Godin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Godin

toasty228 3mo ago

"Content" is usually a perfectly good term, at least in most contexts people use it for, shapeless slop that fills the void of the empty vessels most people are

0x4e 3mo ago

I wonder if anyone has thoughts on the future of “content”? I ask this because of the general adoption of LLMs for information seeking. On one side, I think that those who manage to generate a trusted audience can benefit from this as LLMs generate generic content. On the other side, people could get so used to generic content — like Tik-Toks — that it will only be a handful of people coming to those generating thoughtful content.

lopis 3mo ago
In a way, the YouTube channels I follow are like cable: they produce content of different genres and topics on a regular basis and serve it to me. There's another way to use YouTube, though: you can search for a video and find what you want exactly. The way I use video is unlikely to be completely taken over by AI. Sure, producers might use some AI along the way, but people will continue valuing genuine programming, be it educational, comedy, news etc. But I expect the second kind of content, the one you search for, to be mostly consumed by AI video and AI summaries as time goes on.

Lerc 3mo ago

It's an odd thing, because the reason the word content is used is to permit diversity, but it seems to be widely rejected by those who claim to value diversity. It's a good man who can bring home the sculpture that his wife likes at the end of his workday. But why does it have to be him, and his wife, and a sculpture. Surely the merit is in the person who brings the content that their partner likes, no matter where or when, or what.

CatalystPz 3mo ago

man!, I've always struggled with creating content, volume and frequency of creating it has been an issue for me

Dependance 3mo ago

David is the first instance of "awe" I had in my life. I truly feel blessed to have had that qualia, even if for a few seconds, to witness something larger-than-life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awe The fact that so many people report awe feelings with David hints at something very grand about Michaelangelo, or even humanity at large. Did I feel that way because I did not expect the statute to be so large ? The strength displayed to be so soft ? Was there something in the air ? The only other instance I had of such a feeling was at the Lake Louise, in Alberta (Canada). In both moments, I could remember the thought of seeing something that could not be in any point better than it is.

joenot443 3mo ago
Lake Louise is absolutely breathtaking. Highly encourage everyone to give it a visit if they can.

pastel8739 3mo ago

https://youtu.be/pQvrap19Eng https://youtu.be/pQvrap19Eng

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

jrm4 3mo ago

FWIW, I love the poetic way Pusha T of the Clipse addressed this in POV "They content create, I despise that; I create content, then they tries that.."

Iris595 3mo ago

[flagged]

zuzululu 3mo ago

> The first time I saw Michelangelo’s David in person, I wept. Never in my life have I witnessed a more beautiful piece of content. I stopped reading at this sentence and couldn't take the rest of the article seriously. It felt .... pretentious and self centered.

akurilin 3mo ago

Greg Puciato's Fuck Content album was expressing a similar sentiment: https://gregpuciato.bandcamp.com/album/fuck-content https://gregpuciato.bandcamp.com/album/fuck-content

rekpero 3mo ago

[flagged]

replatformradar 3mo ago

Finally, someone said it: readers are people, not “traffic,” and writing isn’t a “content asset.” Somewhere, a LinkedIn growth hacker just felt a disturbance in the funnel.