Reid DeRamus on Warpcast

Reid DeRamus pfp

It's probably dumb / silly, but I'm really quite allergic to the word "content". I think this feeling really emerged listening to the interview linked below w/ Ted Gioia and Mike Solana. https://read.substack.com/i/120703046/mike-on-content The tricky part is what to use / say instead...

8 replies

3 recasts

27 reactions

Reid DeRamus pfp

I think it's usually best to try to call it what it is — if it's written text, call it "writing" or call the author the "writer", which should at least be pretty accurate in that context, at least maybe more so than "content" and "creator".

1 reply

0 recast

7 reactions

alex pfp

@alexgrover.eth

I agree, to me "content" implies consumable, low effort, slop

2 replies

0 recast

6 reactions

Tom Beck pfp

Content is still a useful word because it tells you a lot about how the piece is distributed and consumed (i.e., "online"). All content, regardless of its type, is subjected to the same power laws of online distribution and attention (the medium is the message, and here the medium is the web). I can write the same 5,000 word story and its distribution (and perception) will be markedly different if I, say, post it to Substack, publish it in a prestigious magazine, or print out copies and hand them to random people on the street.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

bloke pfp

I am not aware on the negative connotation associated with the word content… And I tend to agree that we should use the most granular term when referrring to a specific topic. But, I think it’s important we have A word to distinguish the term ‘data’ a bit more. The next level of data - items we store on data - can be put in 3 broad categories. - Software, which is used for modifying the subsequent 2 - uh analytical data? - Content meant for human-consumption This is important so that we know how these 3 should be treated differently from an ownership and consensus standpoint.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Patrick Atwater pfp

Patrick Atwater

It is dumb Tbh The concept is brought enough to drive a dump truck through

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Callum Wanderloots ✨ pfp

Callum Wanderloots ✨

@wanderloots.eth

I think that content is less about the… contents of the content.. and more about the container of the context of the content Ie, sharing writing is writing, its beautiful, its thoughtful, its long form… if it’s on @paragraph, or a website, or a journal, or a digital garden.. etc. But! Taking that same writing and converting it into the context of social media, it now becomes a constrained idea within the confines of the “box” of the post (or cast). The sole purpose is to promote the brand/long form writing, but it’s submitted to the chaos stream of social media as literal “feed” to the algorithm. In that sense, it’s part of the grind, the mill of social media, that needs to be continuously shared if the creator has any hope of reach/engagement, breaking through the noise. So in that sense, in an algorithmic world, I think it’s actually helpful to bifurcate content into its own style of creation, because it’s not the value in and of itself, it’s what points to the value

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Mac Budkowski ᵏ pfp

Mac Budkowski ᵏ

+1, content is the marketing bs word, and i hate it

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction