I Stopped “Creating Content”
Many creators are pushing back against calling their work “content,” arguing that corporate jargon like “content,” “traffic,” “users,” and “leads” flattens art, writing, and teaching into generic sludge made to fill algorithmic pipelines. Commenters contrast how large platforms legitimately need broad abstractions with how harmful those same terms become when adopted by individual writers, artists, and small businesses, because they subtly shift focus from serving people to optimizing metrics. The thread circles around a core theme: language shapes both intent and output, so choosing more specific, human words (“readers,” “essays,” “comics,” “customers”) is a small but meaningful way to resist commodification and keep creative work grounded in real relationships.
Scope of “Content” and Why It Grates
- Many dislike “content” because it flattens everything—art, essays, videos—into generic, monetizable filler.
- Some see a meaningful boundary: platforms with huge variety reasonably say “content,” but an individual with a specific craft (blog, book, comics, music) can use more precise terms.
- Others argue “content creator” is useful as a cross‑medium label that avoids picking a single identity (writer, musician, woodworker, etc.), though even these people often admit it feels sterile.
Language, Framing, and Corp‑Speak
- Several comments stress that words shape mindset: “content,” “traffic,” “users,” “leads,” “engagement,” “conversion” can dehumanize audiences.
- Alternatives like “readers,” “listeners,” “customers,” “fans,” “people” are seen as reminding creators they serve real humans.
- Some defend business jargon as legitimate abstraction for aggregating similar activities; the same way tech has its own neutral jargon.
- Others keep personal “banned word” lists (content, product, journey, thought leader, monetize, etc.) because they signal vagueness, obfuscation, or manipulation.
Art vs Content, Medium, and Identity
- One line of thought: “content” is output optimized for consumption volume; “art” is expression of an idea or feeling; both can be commercial.
- Another view: the real distinction is pipeline vs one‑off; serialized, ad‑supported work becomes “content” regardless of its intrinsic quality.
- Several creators insist medium and craft matter (writer, sculptor, musician, producer), and a catch‑all term erases that specificity.
- Others like a broad label but still switch to specific words when talking about concrete work (“comics,” “tutorials,” “podcasts”).
Business Models, Algorithms, and Incentives
- Many blame platform incentives: regular output, engagement metrics, and recommendation algorithms reward high‑volume, low‑depth work.
- Some argue it’s rational “product‑market fit” search; others see it as turning creative work into “slop” optimized for ad slots.
- There’s tension between wanting artists to have reliable income and recognizing that pipeline‑driven business models can degrade quality.
Scraping, Ownership, and Motivation
- A few posters say widespread scraping and AI training on their writing has killed their motivation to publish.
- Others compare this to open source: you rarely capture most of the value you create; some see that as fine, others say significant value capture is needed to sustain effort.
- There’s disagreement over how much altruism vs compensation should realistically underpin creative work.
Meta Reactions and Prior Critiques
- Some praise the article as articulating a long‑felt discomfort with “content.”
- Others feel it overreads harmless jargon or leans into “manufactured grievance.”
- Earlier critiques of the term “content” from free‑software circles are cited as precedent, reinforcing that this discomfort is not new.