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

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Why Content Is King

#71

Post by cbozeman »

rizzom5000 wrote: post #22
cblconfederate wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google+ failed Google itself has lots of (free) content. Search is a medium While stirring content may exist (where is it?) , it rarely meets big tech (so it can be win-win for both)

Youtube, Twitch, TikTok, Instagram, Hulu, Netflix, etc. appear to firmly support that content is king; at least in some small corner of the internet.

They don't support that content is king, they support that ease of use is king.

Imagine if, to upload a TikTok video, you had to bring it into an editing suite as complex as DaVinci Resolve and tweak all kind of things... add and refine audio tracks... color grade it, etc. It wouldn't have taken off at all.

What all these platforms have in common is that even idiots can use them to make "content"... if you can even call it that.

Re: Why Content Is King

#72

Post by leetcrew »

im3w1l wrote: post #61
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/…

My pet peeve is User Generated Content. Generate is often used when an inanimate object gives rise to something, so UGC is dehumanizing in addition to being devaluing.

that's a surprising complaint. "generate" has a strong etymological connection to birth and creation more generally, particularly by/of humans.

Re: Why Content Is King

#73

Post by [deleted] »

username90 wrote: post #62
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A big difference is that others can consume the same thing, a million content creators is more than enough to supply content to the entire world. There is no reason why consuming digital content should cost a significant part of your income when it is so cheap to produce at global scale.

[deleted]

Re: Why Content Is King

#74

Post by tomnipotent »

cbozeman wrote: post #70
dmje wrote: post #8

Conflating "media" and "content" is the issue here. Facebook is successful because of content. Google+ failed because there wasn't any content. Heading tech up against content in some way is also a silly argument. Good tech supports the transmission of content. Bad tech gets in the way. Good content is enabled by good tech. Ultimately, a web page with some stirring, moving or life changing words on it is going to hav…

Facebook isn't successful because of content. Facebook is successful because of its ease of use comparative to Google+. Facebook's genius was that it was designed to be easy enough for the masses to use. Google+ was clearly designed by engineers, for engineers. There's your problem right there, but you got it right in the second part of your post. > Good tech supports the transmission of content. Bad tech gets in the…

> Facebook isn't successful because of content.

Of course Facebook is successful because of content. Do you think people keep going back not to view photos or posts of others?

Re: Why Content Is King

#75

Post by cblconfederate »

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…

Most of these terms came from marketing

Re: Why Content Is King

#76

Post by digitalengineer »

throwaway3699 wrote: post #18
dmje wrote: post #8

Conflating "media" and "content" is the issue here. Facebook is successful because of content. Google+ failed because there wasn't any content. Heading tech up against content in some way is also a silly argument. Good tech supports the transmission of content. Bad tech gets in the way. Good content is enabled by good tech. Ultimately, a web page with some stirring, moving or life changing words on it is going to hav…

Most content on Facebook is garbage. So more accurately it's addictive content that fits the algorithm which is important. For that to happen, you need users. Typical chicken and egg problem.

Garbage content is part of the plan. That is literally what makes it addictive. See ‘The Hook Model’. Basically people ‘gamble’ for good content like they do on a slot machine.

Re: Why Content Is King

#77

Post by cbozeman »

tomnipotent wrote: post #74
cbozeman wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook isn't successful because of content. Facebook is successful because of its ease of use comparative to Google+. Facebook's genius was that it was designed to be easy enough for the masses to use. Google+ was clearly designed by engineers, for engineers. There's your problem right there, but you got it right in the second part of your post. > Good tech supports the transmission of content. Bad tech gets in the…

> Facebook isn't successful because of content. Of course Facebook is successful because of content. Do you think people keep going back not to view photos or posts of others?

You could share photos on MySpace.

You could share photos on Friendster.

You could share photos on .

Its ease of use. It always has been.

Re: Why Content Is King

#78

Post by dredmorbius »

puranjay wrote: post #9
arthurcolle wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can't though. Books, printing presses, etc. are all forms of technology. Good content can't as easily propagate and proliferate without the infrastructure created by the tooling that supports the activity. You might be inclined to state that this belabors the point of being specific about modern Web technologies, but still - the medium is the message. They are still linked even if the underlying technologies chang…

Good content can't propagate as fast without technology, but it can spread far and wide. The "tech" used in spreading the Iliad and the Ramayana was the spoken word. And yet they spread across countries and cultures.

The Iliad and Ramayana were using the most cutting-edge information technology of their time, and spreading with the backing of the extant political regimes.

They were not competing with TikTok, CATV, and Disney.

Re: Why Content Is King

#80

Post by rambojazz »

fmajid wrote: post #13

Content is not king, and Andrew Odlyzko explains why: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=235282 At the time he wrote it, the whole of Hollywood yearly revenue made less than 2 weeks of telcos’, and SMS by itself was worth more (SMS has been commoditized since, to the benefit of Apple and Facebook).

I wish I could read that paper, but it's behind a wall. Got a public link?
Post reply on HN