undefined

points

[-]

> 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.

by the_af7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by idiotsecant6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That is what is happening though. It's an accurate description. These are cases of making content for corporations to sell ads against.

by the_af6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.