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

Why Content Is King

divinations.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: Why Content Is King

#41

Post by enriquto »

blfr wrote: post #30
Veen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Consuming" always irritates me. We don't read written works or watch videos, we consume content.

The new way of interacting with videos and other media online does warrant a different term. Many people really don't watch videos, they consume content, ie. scroll or swipe through an endless stream of tweets/videos/reddit posts stopping and then moving on. It's just like watching a movie vs watching TV, reading versus paging through the newspaper, etc.

> It's just like watching a movie vs watching TV

yet here you use the same word without problem, don't you?

I guess an appropriate word for "casually reading" would be "browsing" ?

Re: Why Content Is King

#43

Post by borepop »

enriquto wrote: post #4

A good start would be to stop using this stupid terminology. Quoting RMS [0]: I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them creators, they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them content) in order to gain income (the term compensation falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages). [0] https://web.archive.org/web/…

I don't love the terminology either, but it's like a lot of evolving linguistic culture: it tends to stick in the craw of those of use who grew up using different words, not because it is "wrong" per se but because it is different. I think the linguistic shift actually does map on to a notably different attitude toward the way cultural products are produced and consumed, as other commenters have noted, as well as the democratization of the resources for creating things like video due to the ubiquity of smartphones.

Re: Why Content Is King

#44

Post by SuoDuanDao »

bonoboTP wrote: post #40
enriquto wrote: post #4

A good start would be to stop using this stupid terminology. Quoting RMS [0]: I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them creators, they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them content) in order to gain income (the term compensation falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages). [0] https://web.archive.org/web/…

I'm really ambivalent about Stallman's language crusades. Similarly to how I dislike the focus on the newest politically correct terminology. Why is "creative" OK, when "creator" isn't? I think it's more about the fact that adopting the enemy's language is seen as a kind of submission, a recognition and acceptance of their power over you, even if their words themselves aren't "bad" intrinsically. Not sure if it's the…

Well, there's also the theory - articulated best in Orwell's 1984 of the places I've seen it argued for - that language also shapes what thoughts can be held or shared. Given how much impact choosing the programming language has on a technical project I'm inclined to think there's something to that idea, and Stallman may be more sensitive to that than the average bear.

Re: Why Content Is King

#45

Post by puranjay »

coldtea wrote: post #14
puranjay wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little strange relationship. Tech without content can't survive. Whereas good content can spread far and wide without tech.

> It's a little strange relationship. Tech without content can't survive. I'm pretty sure it can. Just not entertainment tech (game consoles, etc).

"Content" has a pretty broad definition. In a social network, "content" is people (and what they post). In a search engine, it's documents (and what's in them). In an app store, it's apps.

If there was nothing worth reading online, no one would use Google. If no one was posting anything interesting on Facebook, it would have no users. If there were no apps worth using on the iOS store, iPhone wouldn't have nearly as big a market share.

You're looking at content in a very narrow definition. A database is content, as is a casual conversation with your friends.

Re: Why Content Is King

#46

Post by marcosdumay »

blackcats wrote: post #27

No, PageRank is king. AI isn’t at the level of understanding content yet

Yeah, that difference is gonna fix itself at some time.

Monopolies can subvert natural human behavior for some time, but if Google won't make its AI content aware, it will eventually stop to matter.

Re: Why Content Is King

#47

Post by powvans »

Veen wrote: post #20
enriquto wrote: post #4

A good start would be to stop using this stupid terminology. Quoting RMS [0]: I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them creators, they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them content) in order to gain income (the term compensation falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages). [0] https://web.archive.org/web/…

"Consuming" always irritates me. We don't read written works or watch videos, we consume content.

Generally consuming something means that it no longer exists after it has been consumed. A fire consumes a home and it can no longer be lived in. I consume a hamburger and therefore you cannot eat it. Content on the internet isn't consumed in this sense. If anything it's your own time and attention that is consumed when watching videos.

Re: Why Content Is King

#48

Post by KineticLensman »

powvans wrote: post #47
Veen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Consuming" always irritates me. We don't read written works or watch videos, we consume content.

Generally consuming something means that it no longer exists after it has been consumed. A fire consumes a home and it can no longer be lived in. I consume a hamburger and therefore you cannot eat it. Content on the internet isn't consumed in this sense. If anything it's your own time and attention that is consumed when watching videos.

> If anything it's your own time and attention that is consumed when watching videos.

Yes. 'Content' certainly isn't consumed from the perspective of the content providers, who can keep streaming the same data until they choose not to.

[Edit] Hmmm. Consumption, in the sense of irreversibly using a one-time resource, is sort of relevant. Once I have consumed food, I cannot re-consume it (in it's original form). Using this meaning, however, I 'use' rather than 'consume' a physical book or other format where I have a physical copy of the data (e.g. in the form of a non-rented DVD or similar).

Re: Why Content Is King

#49

Post by KineticLensman »

enriquto wrote: post #26
amelius wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with "content"? It's the opposite of "without content".

It's the epitome of wooden language. Your example is very good for proving my point; the expression "without content" talks about what? about the content? So you would say "content without content" to speak about a text that does not have substantial content?

> It's the epitome of wooden language

Exactly. See the comment elsewhere about Orwell's 1984. In which Newspeak [0] is "a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual's ability to think and articulate "subversive" concepts such as personal identity, self-expression and free will"

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Re: Why Content Is King

#50

Post by inglor_cz »

powvans wrote: post #47
Veen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Consuming" always irritates me. We don't read written works or watch videos, we consume content.

Generally consuming something means that it no longer exists after it has been consumed. A fire consumes a home and it can no longer be lived in. I consume a hamburger and therefore you cannot eat it. Content on the internet isn't consumed in this sense. If anything it's your own time and attention that is consumed when watching videos.

But consummation of a marriage does not mean a cannibal feast.
Post reply on HN