Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Stopped “Creating Content”

refactoringenglish.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 249 posts

Re: I Stopped “Creating Content”

#111

Post by pessimizer »

danielciocirlan wrote: post #59

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, conve…

> If they do, they will pay you because they will rather part with money than part with your work.

Paying for access to "content" that isn't capital is a bizarre business model. The only reason it ever existed is because the medium (paper, videotape) was expensive. The smart reason you pay people is because you want them to continue producing, not because you want to continue consuming.

If I have something to say, it's a favor people are doing for me when they read it. In the real world, you beg for people to listen to you.

Influential people already know this. I don't sponsor people who do journalism or write about politics so I can entertain myself. I don't need them to continually convince me of things I already believe, and any entertainment that I get from the uncovering of corruption is prurient. The reason I send them money is so that other people might come to believe what I believe, and so that other people will see the corruption that I disapprove of.

Most other free "content creation" is in fact people advertising themselves as useful capital, hoping to be acquired by other people who think that they can make a profit. "Content creation" is a cargo cult; if you're lucky, 1) somebody sees you as capital and buys you, or 2) somebody else who shares your ability to profit off a related range of content notices you, and you create a mutually beneficial community.

If you're unlucky, you just do random stuff with no object. Or I should say very lucky, because you're already being subsidized by someone else - the proof is that you're eating and not cooking.

There's always been way too much "content," long before the internet. In fact, the internet is currently in the midst of an orgy of content destruction in order to protect capital, while criminals are the ones attempting to preserve and distribute that content.

Re: I Stopped “Creating Content”

#112

Post by AuthAuth »

catapart wrote: post #19
keiferski wrote: post #18

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 pa…

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 partic…

I perfer the term maker because its descriptive without the commercial aspect.

Re: I Stopped “Creating Content”

#113

Post by c-hendricks »

nancyminusone wrote: post #9
stopamertime wrote: post #2

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?

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?

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)

Re: I Stopped “Creating Content”

#114

Post by dizhn »

glial wrote: post #33

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.

I don't know how common it is but I can't stand "consume" for "eat/drink". Especially when used in the first person. Why would anybody say that about what they eat?

Re: I Stopped “Creating Content”

#115

Post by sltr »

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

Re: I Stopped “Creating Content”

#116

Post by t0mpr1c3 »

ktallett wrote: post #106
TACIXAT wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Do you mean authentic?

Re: I Stopped “Creating Content”

#117

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

tombert wrote: post #109
danielciocirlan wrote: post #59

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, conve…

A long time ago Simon Peyton Jones said Haskell tries to "avoid success at all costs". He was being cheeky, but it honestly is how I try and approach most of what I do that isn't directly related to my employment (as a software person). My blog posts are just for me; I don't market them, I don't expect anyone else to read them, I don't spam links to all my friends every time I post anything. I have no idea if my writ…

Same here.

I also write software for free, but it’s not a cry in the dark. It’s serious, ship-grade software, released into the App Store, and used by thousands.

It’s just not designed to make money.

Re: I Stopped “Creating Content”

#118

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

Jtarii wrote: post #74
keiferski wrote: post #18

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 pa…

If you are making meaningful things then you shouldn't be afraid to sound pretentious. Everyone's so terrified that they might stand out.

Heh. I have written stuff that has changed the world. Not in a big way, but thousands and thousands of people around the world use my stuff daily, and no one knows I had anything to do with it. I’m still at it. I’m getting ready for the first public test of a fairly ambitious app.

My friends use my stuff all the time, and they are always gobsmacked, when they find out I did it.

I do it for free, and tend to follow my own muse, as opposed to $_BUZZWORD_DU_JOUR, so tech folks aren’t really impressed, when I mention it (like, now, I suspect).

It’s not really very rewarding to talk about it. Either people get all impressed, or insulting (the typical HN reaction). Neither does much for me, so I’m best off just keeping my mouth shut, and my mind on my work. There’s others that are much better than me. I’m just grateful to be able to Give Back.

That’s not pretension; it’s just facts. But there’s often no need to mention the facts.

Re: I Stopped “Creating Content”

#119

Post by cindyllm »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #117
tombert wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A long time ago Simon Peyton Jones said Haskell tries to "avoid success at all costs". He was being cheeky, but it honestly is how I try and approach most of what I do that isn't directly related to my employment (as a software person). My blog posts are just for me; I don't market them, I don't expect anyone else to read them, I don't spam links to all my friends every time I post anything. I have no idea if my writ…

Same here. I also write software for free, but it’s not a cry in the dark. It’s serious, ship-grade software, released into the App Store, and used by thousands. It’s just not designed to make money.

[dead]

Re: I Stopped “Creating Content”

#120

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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

Post reply on HN