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

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: Why Content Is King

#51

Post by inglor_cz »

srivatsamudumby wrote: post #23
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/…

lol, "please let's not call them creators, they are not gods"

In fact, they sort-of are, in the worlds that they have created.

GRRM is de facto a creator god of Westeros, and Tolkien of Middle-earth.

Re: Why Content Is King

#52

Post by enriquto »

inglor_cz wrote: post #50
powvans wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is from the verb "to consummate", not the verb "to consume".

Re: Why Content Is King

#54

Post by [deleted] »

inglor_cz wrote: post #50
powvans wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Why Content Is King

#55

Post by Bodell »

inglor_cz wrote: post #50
powvans wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The etymology of the words “consummate” and “consume” are completely different. The former is from con (altogether) and summa (sum total; taken from summa (highest supreme)): my interpretation is “union with god”. Which fits with its adjective definition: high degree of skill; complete or perfect. The later, to consume, is from con (altogether) but added to sumere (take up). And if someone were to altogether-take-up I would assume that there would be nothing left.

Re: Why Content Is King

#56

Post by prox »

dredmorbius wrote: post #33

First, the phrase "content is king" doesn't originate with Bill Gates, or Sumner Redstone, who popularised it. It appears in a 1974 book, and pre-dates even that. See: https://lgkmarketingcc.com/content-king-said-better/ The book seems to be J. W. Click, Russell N. Baird, Magazine Editing and Production ( https://www.worldcat.org/title/magazine-editing-and-producti... ). W. C. Brown Company, 1974, 274 pages. (Google…

Awesome references, and I agree. Interestingly, we have been moving to several networks as walled gardens and left the open internet (to some degree)

Re: Why Content Is King

#57

Post by Bakary »

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…

In this case the language crusade prompts us to think about our assumptions more deeply. The comment did bring my attention to concepts I had not noticed before.

There is an adversarial aspect to it, but it's no different from debating ideas. You're just questioning certain premises, it doesn't mean you have to discard them afterwards.

Re: Why Content Is King

#59

Post by hypertele-Xii »

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.

The novelty of such works, however, is consumed when seen for the first time. You can never see a work of art for the first time a second time. And that's important.

Re: Why Content Is King

#60

Post by coldtea »

puranjay wrote: post #45
coldtea wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>"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 we stretch the definition beyond any meaning, or to mean "input" or "data" in general, then sure.

Usually by content we mean news, music, videos, movies, writing, comedy, commentary, etc. though.

Not apps, office documents, or people's social messages...

>You're looking at content in a very narrow definition.

Me and most people using the term. Perhaps you're looking at it in an extremely wide definition?

Post reply on HN