☠ Yarrr! Content ☠

[@NerdSyncProductions]

I am content with this explanation.

[@OwenLikesComics]

NerdSync I am content knowing you beat me to that joke.

[@solo8348]

NerdSync I'm concerned with your pun game.

[@Daemonworks]

it's a contentious issue

[@montycantsin8861]

I found this thread too late. I was camping with felons.

[@MrEGod]

Satisfying and delicious.

[@InnuendoStudios]

Oh, I get it. People say Content Creator when they don't want to say Artist.

[@DewMan001]

Yyyyyuuup! Pretty much! ^^^

[@curiousfirely]

So Much Yes! I have been trying to find the words for this distinction, and now I have it!! As a High School teacher, I often try and explain to my students why focusing on reading or watching more in-depth pieces is different than just scrolling through feeds and processing in snippets. I often ask them to find something more substantial to read/watch when they are finished their work, and so often need to justify the difference. (And am happy to do so, despite frequent eye rolling on their part.) Thank you for putting this in words, and I will heartily agree with the word content lining up with mere consumption.

[@CynicalHistorian]

but this begs the question: What would you prefer "content" to be called? To me, "media maker, episodic entertainer, or virtual videographer" (alliteration, lol) all seem to have the same nullifying effect for what we do here.

[@hq4287]

Hi Cynical Historian! I think that you make good point. Work, with the plural works, is the one I use for creations made over various mediums. But there you go.

[@alexcannella4]

This was an interesting topic! One thing that comes to mind about "content" is that there's usually a creation treadmill involved, particularly in commercial applications of the word. When you think about things like books, movies, or albums, they don't come out on a set schedule. Depending on the artist/author/whathaveyou, it could be six months between installments or 10 years, and even a self-contained book series, for example, could have different stretches of time between installments that depend on a host of factors. Sometimes, an author just gets writer's block for two months, and usually everyone accepts that. "Content," however, is regularly occurring on a fixed schedule. In general, you can expect Idea Channel to come out with one new video and one comment response video a week, as that's its production schedule. And most importantly, they do this year round without breaks. Even TV shows don't follow this schedule, as even if they might come out on a weekly basis during a season, they also have an off-season where there's nothing new coming out. The closest non-internet comparison I can think of to "content" in the context I'm describing are late night shows, and it's probably not a coincidence that they can be counted as some of the more popular or trending channels on youtube. But for youtube creators and copywriters writing company blogs alike, the production pipeline is unceasing. One of the most basic tips for aspiring youtube creators is to figure out a schedule and stick with it. You hold on to your schedule with both hands and you pump out an article/video every week, 52 weeks a year. And since a lot of "content creators" treat youtube as their profession, that means content every week for decades until they retire. It's never a question of when the next installment of Idea Channel will be, but what will be discussed to fill the time. And in a lot of ways, "content" can go wrong when what you put into that content isn't to fulfill the original purpose of your channel/blog/whatever, but putting something together purely for the sake of continuing that schedule and staying on that treadmill. While there are plenty of other facets to the equation that also contribute, I think that unflagging consistency of production is a big part of what contributes to "content" being considered consumable to the point where sometimes it begins feeling like a manufactured product on an assembly line, far moreso than "non-content." And I feel that's where things start to smell and the word begins to take on less than flattering connotations.

[@HannibalHanslaughter]

Weirdly I expected this to be just Mike saying "Yarr! Content" over and over again Weirdly I am somewhat disappointed

[@asthmen]

Weirdly, what you say makes sense.

[@AncientBlueDragon]

Drinking game: take a shot every time he says "content"

[@firewordsparkler]

I think we would actually die.

[@liohobo]

someone would comment this eventually

[@angelmints]

of rum? yarrr

[@grassyclimer6853]

Indigo Maclaurin 45 seconds in you hit the floor

[@TheKnizzine]

Indigo Maclaurin had to go throw up about 10 shots in.

[@HPBlakeney]

I think the best way to distinguish "content" from, for lack of a better word, "media" is by comparing "content" to the chapters in a book, the episodes of a TV show, or the songs on an album. On KZbin, each video is just another episode in the series of videos that is a channel, likewise articles on news sites or, say, BuzzFeed, are just chapters within the endlessly expanding book that is their platform. I dunno. Something like that.

[@RozzamaTRON]

I think you may be onto something here. On the internet, each platform--whether that's KZbin, Buzzfeed, Reddit or whatever--is like a box that "content(s)"* gets dumped into. By virtue of the way these platforms work, everything in them is interconnected. I can finish a Buzzfeed quiz written for the new Game of Thrones series and at the end I get recommended a years-old quiz titled, say, "What Red Wedding Character Are You?" (I don't watch GoT so hopefully such a quiz makes sense). That old quiz is still doing its job as part of the content(s) of the box that is Buzzfeed. But even really similar offline media, let's say a quiz in a 1995 issue of Cosmo, does not function in the same way. Printed issues of Cosmo were never a single box into which "content(s)" were put because the links made between each issue of the magazine were inconvenient at best, and at worst non-existent. There was no discovery mechanism for work that the staff at Cosmo did years ago, and thus everything they produced was understood to have a set lifespan. The box metaphor, and therefore the contents/content metaphor, breaks down under these conditions, because you can't fill up a box with stuff if that stuff is fading out of existence as fast as you're putting new stuff in. *This metaphor would have been so perfect if it wasn't for that grammatically-required "s" in contents. Dammit.

[@HPBlakeney]

RozzamaTRON Couldn't the problem of magazine and news media not fitting into the metaphor be solved by the application of negative continuity? In the context of magazines, for example, each issue is episodic, rather than serial, so it doesn't matter that there is no reference to previous issues. It's essentially the same as, say, The Simpsons, where, with the exception of a few specific cliff-hanger episodes, each story is pretty much entirely self-contained. There's still a certain amount of continuity, owing more to the progression of real life than any writing effort, but you can pretty much pick any episode at random and enjoy it without any of the context from previous episodes.

[@ietsbram]

RozzamaTRON so you are saying content is defined by its ever expanding nature?

[@RozzamaTRON]

Bram iets Pretty much, yeah. And by any method which allows old content to easily be resurfaced (in the case of the internet, this broadly means hyperlinks, but another method could feasibly turn offline media into "content")

[@HPBlakeney]

+Thomas Schillmüller I get where you're coming from, but I think your reasoning might be slightly flawed. Episodes and chapters aren't a bit like servings, they are servings. Also, it may be more helpful to say that a box of cereal contains its ingredients, but that's like saying that a book contains its characters and tropes, or a TV show contains its actors and crew (and tropes), or that a song contains specific notes and chords. It's sort of an issue of approaching from opposite ends. As consumers, we come from the end of the completed product, so the only thing that really matters is consuming each serving, without really caring what goes into it. On the other hand, creators approach from the end of the incomplete product, so it's much more important for them to know the ingredients that they're going to use to make the product as satisfying for the consumers as possible.

[@gen.giggles]

As a blogging poet, my poems are viewed as less important than published poems. The idea that the poems on the internet are less important than those published in hard copy is problematic. This I think stems from them same place a the disdain for "vanity press". Much like content creators on KZbin, bloggers, blogging poets, and other internet published individuals are viewed as less because there is no gatekeeper. I have read numerous articles arguing that self-published books on Amazon shouldn't be bought because there isn't someone to make sure they are "quality" entertainment. This is I am certain part of the problem Mike is seeing. There are a number of people involved in making a movie that gets into a theater, but a little festival like Z-Fest has quality shorts many will never be seen beyond that one spot. Those films are considered less important than the next Marvel film, but the real difference isn't budget (though that is a factor also), it is the "gatekeeper" who makes sure the movie is "quality". This is a failure of an idea we need look no further than most action films. They are formulaic and you can figure out the plot before the the first 15 minutes are over (this includes twists where the hero dies). If we remove the idea from opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines (which are just blogs with a gatekeeper) we see little difference and consumer of the media decides if it is important rather than some suit whose goal is to keep making money.

[@TastySnackies]

I've been an audience member of this since 2008. I remember early on being subscribed to Philip DeFranco, and how encapsulated I was by the notion of KZbin, and content in general. Television, magazines, and books were replaced by the likes of KZbin, Facebook, and gaming. As an avid consumer, I view it all as content, and all of us as independent entertainers. Whether it be to our ego on Twitter, friends and family to Facebook, or a crowd on KZbin, I feel like everyone on the internet caters to an audience of their own. Eventually I, myself became a content creator, and have learned what it's like to cultivate and foster an audience of my own. With that, I've become more aware of what it is that I'm doing, exactly, and I can't help but to think that it's providing content just like everyone else is. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent watching KZbin like I would have the tv. But, there's a subtle difference; that content on the internet is evergreen. The on-demand aspect of being able to repeatedly watch and share a video on the internet is much more far-reaching than the latest episode of Murder, She Wrote would have been. But for every memorable piece of content that's worthy to share, theres thousands of "Giant Kinder Egg Surprise Unboxing" or " Review" videos that completely muck up the space in-between. This is is the mindless dredge that people on the internet love to gorge on for hours on end. Hell, I know I get down on some ranting video marathons. Anyways, I hope what I typed was cohent, and that it made sense. Great video! :)

[@brockmckelvey7327]

Adding "Yarrr! Content!" to the list of Idea Channel phrases I throw around in everyday life. Same with "zhaife".

[@the42ndmatt]

I realise you aren't the only person to try and bring nuance to youtube discussions but I enjoy the way you do it and results you get the most.

[@Allyouknow5820]

Watching this in 2019, missing Idea Channel and how it changed my view on certain things (from cocktails to pizza, to memes...) actually only further proves the point that Mike was trying to make. Pretty happy about that :)

[@type1ninja940]

YAAAARRRRRR *pirate noises*

[@AylethsBlade]

I feel like the reason why we have this dichotomy between internet content creators and the mainstream also has to do with how we relate, at large, to those creators. If I heard Benedict Cumberbatch, for example, was putting out a book or a podcast or something outside of film I wouldn't care. Not because I don't enjoy his work, but because I don't watch his shows for 'him'. He is not sold to me like a brand in the same way a youtuber is for example. John Green I believe is the best example I could reference for to further clarify my meaning. If I were to bring his name up in reference to enjoying his newest work with someone who does not have active internet interactivity outside of netflix/hulu/social media, to someone who is not a part of the community of independent creators that use this as a medium for media, then they would cite that it has been more than a fair while since his last book and might look at me askance for calling it new thus putting me in a position to back up and clarify that I mean 100 days (though even that is hardly the newest thing and perhaps a poor reference, but I believe my point still stands.) I think it's similar to the commentary that Nerdwriter put out on Casey Neistat, about this is a field that rewards 'amateurism'. The difference to me between 'content' and content creators is that mainstream access. There is no official board stamping a label on what that person is or is allowed to do. There is no typecasting of them and their services because they are starting up from a base that knows them to be 'amateur' per say. I don't feel like that's the best way to put my point, but I think we have this difference on the mainstream because it's not just a product that I'm buying from the creator but their ability to success and by being a consumer of their 'content' I am not just getting the work that put out but a share in their success - even if that includes them reshaping their work and models of work. That is not something culturally we're forced to take awareness of with mainstream creators.

[@rileymckinley]

+

[@CuleChick11]

I hadn't thought of it like this. Excellent point!

[@ericpa06]

I agree, for instance, when you participate from a movie, as an actor. That movie it's not YOUR content. It's not made only by you, but for hundreds and thousands of other people.

[@CharlesBosse]

Notably, extras on movies are often called 'deleted/additional content'

[@blep301]

I had an adjacent thought. I am a 'content creator" in that I work for a production company that makes theater and film. When I use the word "content" I am referring to our work that is made to be interacted with. For example, Feature Film = not content. Feature Film Trailer = content because it not only goes online, but I expect it to be liked, shared and commented on. And, yes, we often comment back. So if Benedict Cumberbatch does a Facebook livestream, is that content? By my definition, yes. When Mike Rugnetta does theater, is that content? By my definition, no. I think your definition is a great one to determine if a person is a "Creator"/"Content Creator". But maybe it's not super useful for evaluating each individual creation as "content" or "not content". Though, both definitions rely on the ability to interact with the work/creator. Thoughts???

[@AndySteinMusic]

Interesting! In my opinion (as a "content creator") I really don't mind the label, because, in my mind, it seems to indicate a whole bunch of stuff. I use it to sort of lump together a bunch of different videos/posts that one person might make. Someone might call me a musician because that's my primary focus, but someone could call the Game Grumps content creators because they make gaming videos, write skits/sketches, AND ALSO make great music with their side projects. One of the fantastic things about the internet is that it's helped us appreciate how diverse artists can really be. Instead of simply being a writer, or a gamer, or a critic, or a musician, someone can be called a "Content Creator" -- which accurately describes what they do (they make stuff) without forcing them neatly into one little box. There are so many multitalented, multifaceted people online using their platforms to make many different types of entertainment -- it just seems easier to label them as content creators instead of something more limited. I know lots of artists who also run blogs critiquing or curating art. I know musicians who also have gaming channels. Chefs who teach. Any combination of creativity can exist online, and I love it. I think that's why I'll say someone's "content" is great -- it's because I enjoy all of what they make. If i only like one thing, I'll say "I like their speedpaints" or "I"m a fan of their music", but I'll purposely fail to mention their vlogs, reviews, gameplay, or whatever else they create, haha So... yeah, tl;dr, I personally use "content" to describe the many ways in which artists create more than one type of ... "content". I can't think of a better, more all-encompassing word.

[@firewordsparkler]

This was a great explanation, but I'm still a little confused as to what is considered internet content and what isn't. You said at the beginning that we don't consider Aziz Ansari a content creator because he does a variety of things (I'm simplifying, I know), but Master of None was an Internet creation, and his stand-up show was posted to Netflix as well. Do we consider Netflix the Internet, or do we not? And on the other hand, do we still consider Colleen Ballinger a content creator when she has a show on Netflix and a physical book in addition to her youtube series? Is the identity of the "content creator" based on where people started? Since Aziz shot to fame on an NBC sitcom while Colleen shot to fame on KZbin, do we call one an actor/comedian/writer and the other simply a content creator? And is Netflix not lumped in with the rest of Internet content because it started as a DVD service and later provided internet access to already popular things instead of starting as a place for people to create original content, even though it's partially become that?

[@MK.5198]

No we don't (it's too mainstream), yes and yes. I think. Did you ask three questions? But I really do think thats the line, at least that mike is trying to get at, that it's where you start that makes you a "content creator" or not. Netflix is to big for it to be considered pirate voice "content" Anyone who started small and has seen, even broad sucsess is stuck with that label, at least for now. I think that as time advances we're going to lose the defining line between pirate voice content, and "regular" (mainstream) content.

[@malvo4]

I think the line is drawn depending on what we perceive the legacy of a particular piece of content to be. While Netflix content is on the internet, the vast majority of the content has been produced by traditional media or by people who have worked in traditional media, film and/or television. Even though the delivery is novel there is something traditional in the way it is produced. There is a production company, script writers, actors who are a part of the Actors Guild, professional gaffers, lighting, directors of cinematography, ect ect ect. The show Master of None while existing on the internet, still looks like something that would not be out of place on broadcast television. And some movies that are solely released VOD still wouldn't look out of place if given a theater showing or being shown on TV. Even public access television still looks like television because the internet version of that wouldn't have the same constraints on it that informs the final form of a public access show. However internet videos, podcasts, or even blogs have styles and formats that were not established by the previous dominant industries, nor the limitations of those industries, but by what one would consider novices, and a form of style and language of that media on the internet was created that is very hard to duplicate if one is a "content creator" from the internet. Just look at movies and television that have some kind of plot that features characters using social media or simulating a KZbin video. *cough**cough* JEM AND THE HOLOGRAMS *cough* In certain cases *cough* it is painfully obvious that an actual "content creator" did not produce or was involved in creating that video for a film or TV show or else it wouldn't look so over produced. And then look at KZbin stars that attempted to break into traditional media like the where the traditional film or TV people had such a hard time recreating the effective characteristics of KZbin videos in traditional media. Suddenly engaging 10 to 20 minute content, isn't entertaining being stretched into a 90 minute movie or a cohesive storyline cannot be made into a season of TV. The internet is big enough to contain Criterion collection films, silly Fred videos, recordings of classical music, bandcamp EPs, podcasts, internet tours of art museum, and bad drawings of Sonic on Deviant Art; television and film, on the other hand, is not. So what the natural exclusivity of those traditional mediums looks like is a feature that seems to naturally distinguish who is seen as a content creator.

[@itsaUSBline]

I'd say you pretty much nailed it.

[@nicolebracy6724]

firewordsparkler personally i think the best way to view content by his definition is by considering the form we watch the media not the media itself. master of none, aziz etc are all considered Netflix content, they are a portion of the collective known as netflix. Netflix is in this case a large receptacle of media in vast variety, with ease of access and requires no distinct thought to gain access to or find what you want. game theory, idea channel, the richest, dorkly, etc are youtube content because youtube is also a receptacle that allows easy, simplified access without requiring any effort for the sake of quick consumption. In this way a library isnt a receptacle for content, you often have to search and take distinct effort in searching for your entertainment, but an audio book site is, because its ease of access and simplified nature. Hope this helps

[@CharlesBosse]

Can you reply to Netflix (Beyond writing review)? That to me is why it isn't content. Aziz doesn't have learning or discussion rooted.in his presentation, so it isn't content by itself.

[@ReikaSensei]

Honestly as an audience member I learned that was the word to describe the stuff I'm watching, so I use it. It kind of just starts there, but I do think there needs to be a separate word to describe internet media because it's creation is quite different from traditional media. It isn't just that it's on the internet and people consume it easily and it doesn't mean a lack of quality or impact. It's that internet media usually has a small team of people or even a single person taking on the roles of several people in traditional media. Like Aziz Ansari is a person who made a show in that he wrote and produced it, but it's still more like write, star, produce. It's not like he also shoots, edits, does the paperwork and calls for reservations and permits, etc. for his show. There's a bigger cast too. But a content creator or what they do is the sole creator of the work and they are a part of every piece of the project. They wear so many hats that I can't just call them a host, screenwriter, etc. A larger umbrella word is what I need, so content creator.

[@Sodaburger]

This video is timely/intriguing, because I'm a web developer and, for the last few weeks, I've had to deal with a client and their distinct lack of content, and I've been picturing Mike in my head saying "content" as derisively as possible

[@keIinda]

I've never really thought about this distinction before because I actually do use the word "content" for all kinds of works, including books, poems, musical compositions, paintings, and academic/journal articles. I call my own creative works my "content." I have noticed that Internet media tends to be looked down upon, but I didn't associate that attitude with the word "content" until now. Interesting perspective.

[@LimeLimpidGreen]

I like that you mention Neil Cicierega whenever you need a 'fringe' example of some category he happens to fall into

[@brynnieboer]

this episode feels like the first time i read 'ways of seeing' except it's like john berger just standing there telling you what's been on his mind for a year or so. like i'm reading the handwritten first draft. idea channel is my favorite when it feels like i'm hearing some of the most important sociological critical of the decade. usually i'd have to slog through a tediously written academic text to get ideas like this, but mike's just giving them away for free. idea channel episodes like this make me feel like they're making people like murrow, b. fuller, berger, de beauvoir, chomsky, debord and and so many other great thinkers very proud.

[@yitz7805]

Personally, I enjoy "content". Thanks in part to your videos, I have taken to try analyzing "mere content" as "art". Thus for me, as a consumer, "content" changes its meaning to one of depth and subtlety. Of course this is assuming that "content is created by consumers," but I think thats a fair enough opinion to hold.

[@BarryFallsJr]

Possibly because of how many entrepreneurial-minded folks I follow on social media, I've come to associate "content" closely with advertising and how content is often created to promote a product, service, lifestyle or brand. So in the case of Aziz, "Master of None" is created as a product, while anything he creates around it (blog posts, social media stories, interviews) might be regarded as content designed to promote the product, "Master of None."

[@marenjones6665]

I don't know if this will help, but as an art major, one of the things we're taught is to differentiate between format, content, and meaning as three different aspects of created works. Format describes the type of work: 9"x20" oil on canvas, 6' tall found-object sculpture, short online video. Meaning or message refers to the intent of the author, and/or interpretation of the consumer: mood, metaphor, commentary. Content is distinct from both of these, describing on a literal level what the artist has produced: a painting of a barn, a recreation of Michelangelo's Pieta, a review of No Man's Sky. We use the word "content" in this context all the time: "I like her message, but the content doesn't catch me. He makes a lot of interesting content, but he seems to struggle with color." I often, as an artist without a specific medium or line of work picked out, call myself a "content creator" instead of an "illustrator" just because people seem to better understand what that means.

[@lars0me]

For me it is actually the other way around. If you produce content, you produce something of value. This is why KZbin chose the phrase in the first place to validate youtubers to other media, except the association apparently backfired. Content is an umbrella term which can also serve as an "other" category if there is no fitting subcategory. It leaves a negative impression when it is used this way despite the fact a valid subcategory exists, because it implies on its own this subcategory is insignificant. And there is always a subcategory. When it is used as a genuine umbrella term content does not seem to have any negative connotation at all. Example: "This book is one of the best I ever read, but what is truly exceptional about it is the fact it manages to accomplish this without including any sort of character development at all. Story, powers, world building, scale,... there is just so much other content."

[@andobando4873]

I think the distinction of "content" has evolved to a point where it simply means media created for consumption by the internet. An important distinction must be drawn between media created for consumption by the internet and consumption on the internet. I would never call a New York Times video piece "content', but I would, without too much thought, call an Idea Channel episode "content", even if both were made exclusively for the web. And it's not as if either work is low effort. Thefference doesn't lie in the sophistication or complexity of the work, but rather the work:s acknowledgement of it's own medium. By embracing the internet medium and subscribing to it's conventions and culture one becomes content. Content becomes content when content realizes it's content.

[@danielzylberkan1587]

I have an interesting way of looking at this. I am currently getting my PhD in History. Let's say that I wrote an article for a peer reviewed journal on a topic. No one would ever call my scholarly work "content" because it is something which bears much more heft and seriousness than the average social media "content." OK, now let's suppose that I took the same research that I did in writing my article and made it into one of those animated historical KZbin videos or a podcast. It is exactly the same "content" that is to say the data and conclusions from the article but in a different medium. So, yes, I do think that ultimately what does determine if something is content is the form of media delivery and its "ephemeralness." People don't seem to think of the internet as something solid or long-lasting, it is defined by its transient nature. That i ultimately the most important distinction to me, it is about "permanence" vs "transiency." Traditional media from theater to film is defined by its permanence and internet aaargh content is defined by its non-lasting "ephemeral" nature.

[@alessiosusi308]

Maybe because I'm Italian but I instantly think of the origin of the word content which is the same as the Italian word for content "contenuto". It basically means "contained", it's a thing with the sole purpose of filling another. The box is almost more important than its content.

[@shortieXV]

Hopefully this helps inform the convo. Just a guess but I think the term "content" actually comes from the way websites are built. When a page maker is putting stuff onto a page they create sections of the page called "containers". Therefore media or stuff that is "contained" becomes "content". It probably just got into the popular vocab of the Internet when some popular or very public site builder said it publicly and it became easy short hand. I could be wrong about the order of events there but I think this is why "content" has always felt like a natural way for me to refer to Internet page filling stuff.

[@Kentertainer]

In addition to subscribing to this thought-provoking channel, I also subscribe to the theory/definition that everything the internet contains can properly be referred to as content, since the internet is a kind of digital container. Similarly, a brick-and-mortar library is also a kind of container. But, as with my personal perception of the internet, the nature of the container itself infers no judgement on the quality or value of its contents. One consumer’s wheat is another consumer’s chaff. Consequently,, no matter whether the content be digital or tangible, both diamonds and dreck alike are rife for discovery. Although, often not in equal measure.

[@bobdignan]

I'm pickin up what you're puttin down! KZbin as a platform or system aptly distinguishes their DBAs from "Content Creators" as the company would need words to describe the things "hanging on" their system. Similar to your container language, metadata wrappers on a video file (or any digital file) or frames around paintings drive the need for "content" to describe what I am not from the pov of the frame, frame builder or the systems architect.

[@Suppenfischeintopf]

Because you mentioned the word "content creator": I personally use "content creator" as a synonym to " 'journalist' ", to distinct between journalism - real good journalism - and "journalism" - _content_ as way to transport ads and to make money.

[@AxDeath]

I've never assumed content to be internet only, mass consumed or merely consumed, or in anyway a derision of a person's contribution. Content is media is art. Content to me always meant only a wider variety of manufactured works, such that you could not be labelled or such that common labels did not apply. If you have performed several concerts, written a handfull of books, and do impromptu vaudeville in the area parks on alternate weekends, then old news men might call you a musician, but I would say I enjoy all the content you create. It's even more important as you widen that spectrum of content that defies common conception, and the internet gives us a place to do that; to manufacture content faster than traditional media can label it.

[@faeoori]

Some of my favorite KZbin creators call themselves content creators, so it's hard for me to think of the word negatively. In my view the difference is not internet vs. not... it's large companies versus small groups. To me those that make small time documentaries are as much content creators as are the 'Draw With Jazza ' crew that I enjoy so thoroughly. Time, books, movies, etc. are all created by LARGE groups. Content creators depend on donations, and hard hours worked by small crews. They make what they do for their own desires as much as for others. I think that CONTENT broadly may be a limiting term. However, the simple addition of the word creator, transforms the concept for me.

[@NIOXKOXBOX]

I am a content creator and consumer since near the beginning of youtube. It has been my source of entertainment since I was around ten, and because I have grown up with it I associate the word content with: Good entertainment. For the people around my age, 19, and even more so for younger kids who grow up with "content" referring to content.

[@CuleChick11]

My perspective: The definition of "content" as we are using it here was developed, or at least popularized, primarily on the internet, so those who are most often on the internet are generally more familiar with that use of the term. I have seen this definition used in other situations, and usually, only people who are very rarely online seem to think it's a bit odd. I think we are simply in a transitional phase between two accepted uses. While "content", for now, seems more comfortable online while something like "media" is typically used elsewhere, I think the two understood meaning are already beginning to converge and as more and more "media" becomes "content" as it is experience online, "content" may become the common way we refer to these art forms in the future, while "media" becomes an antiquated sounding term. For now though, I appreciate your perspective, and your willingness to share it. :D

[@seajanitor407]

I'm a comic writer. I've been doing it for less than a year. Some of my comics are great and some of them aren't so great. When I became print published it changed they way that people look at me because I was vetted by a company. However, I would still consider all of my work "content" even if it's print published. When I talk about content it's just something that is made. When I want to talk about something that is good it's considered "good content". I read or watch most things online or through my computer and I believe everything is "content". It's just a matter of how good it is. "Content" isn't a diss or derogatory remark because everything is "content".

[@Mystic_Stirling]

Next Disney Film: What if content has feelings? XD

[@AndrewVallejos]

As a creator of "content" I have always used the term to refer to the stuff within the vehicle. To take the analogy of the book, the "content" of the book is the copy and illustrations that can be found within the book, the book being the vehicle to deliver said "content". In my professional life I started to use the word content as short-hand for "copy, text, hyperlinks, pictures, gifs, video, etc." that someone may want to include in the webpage/site that I was creating for them. I don't use the word "content" as a consumer. When referring to internet media I consume, I refer to the vehicle equivalent. For example, I will say "watching a video on Idea Channel", or ask "Are you caught up on Critical Role?" Because it is important to acknowledge that these are unified bodies of works, much like Game of Thrones (book or HBO series). As to Mike's main "beef" about the word content, I don't really see a better alternative at the moment. I would be interested in hearing what Mike would like to be referred to as, in lieu of "content creator"... author, actor, host, scriptwriter, KZbinr?

[@FrankieSmileShow]

I feel that the idea of content is like, an advertisers' perspective of the stuff that people do to draw in consumers to see their advertising or use their service. Like, the opposite of "content" is not "art", but "product": A product is something that people pay to access, while content is bait for ears and eyeballs. This feels like the context that this word comes from, and where it is used most often. Its also the connotation I usually feel when I hear it.

[@Doombacon]

As a content consumer, rather than a creator, I personally see my use of the word "content" to generally refer to the collection of an internet personalities works. While this is not directly in line with the meaning of the word I find myself using it in this way quite frequently. What I mean by this is while you reference an ocean of content that comes from the internet, I reference a pool of content that the particular creator has produced. I feel like this outlook has a very different level of respect for individual pools of content than most people tend to have.

[@jadesprite]

This is definitely one of the better recent Idea Channel eps!

[@MichaelHeller]

As a tech news writer and more recently reporter, my experience has been that the word "content" has a somewhat anonymizing factor to it. A tech blog that wants to generate as much "content" as possible doesn't care so much about the people creating that content and may even want to erase the individual in an effort to push a more consistent "voice". On the other hand, a source that values the personalities and individuals that create for them may not get slapped with the word "content" as much (at least not in my head). For example, we would never say that that a famous actor creates content, but I would say that the social media manager for that actor creates content in the form of tweets, Instas, etc.

[@kazriko]

Books are content, movies are content, television is content, radio is content, everything is content. Yay. As an example of how offline books are in fact content, they usually have this little set of pages at the front that have descriptions followed by numbers that point at where to find things. This is called the Table of Contents. Thus, the things pointed to by those numbers must be themselves Content.

[@infinihedron]

as a child of the 80s I feel that "content" is merely a description of "mass consumed media" as shows on HBO or Superchannel were called "cable content"and the rest of the televisual landscape was referred to as "broadcast content".

[@roryokane5907]

At 8:06 Mike FINALLY says "content" with a pirate voice again and the universe is restored to order. I kept expecting him to revert to saying "content" the proper (piratey) way and he didn't and it felt wrong - I can't help but say it that way IRL now. But then, I also pronounce .gif as zhaif a la Idea Channel (saw someone refer to this as an Idea Channel Shibboleth and I find that phrase immensely satisfying).

[@ninaah_s]

Random and unrelated thing: Contente (the pronounce is very similar to Content) in portuguese means Happy/Satisfied. I thought of that every time he said "Yarr!Content!"

[@GdnMaW]

I absolutely agree that "content" signifies "internet creations". I think the term has solidified itself from other content creators using the words that their sponsors use to describe their creation: i.e. content. This does not mean that all content is bad; I would gladly consume hours of internet "content" before touching anything close to daytime TV.

[@forthwalled]

When the word "content" has been used so often you now have jamais vu and don't recognise it as a word anymore.

[@kam03m]

Based on my experience as a software engineer, I would hypothesize that the use of the word "content" as descibed here of began among the creators of websites or webapps. They are focused on creating the containers the the "content" goes into. In that context, it's important to differentiate between the container (webapp) that the engineer is working on and the content that's coming from somewhere else.

[@seanrendall5495]

I applied "content" to everything. I have a lot of experience studying theatre in practice and I even considered the content of the play to be... content. I've noticed the new distinction... But you brought a lot of light to the issue.

[@spencerkaminsky6943]

That copy of House of Leaves on the back shelf... It haunts me. *Talk about it, Mike. Talk about the book*

[@jaybretherton6246]

How I've understood it, 'content' is used when the person consuming the media is doing so because of the creator or overall work more than the individual pieces of said work. Such as an episode in a series could be called content or a KZbin video where the creator has a defined style of video, somone is watching for the feeling or ideas that the video creates, or for the overarching story or simply the characters of a series. If the media's main reason for consumption would stand on it's own then it would not be called content as it is itself what is enjoyed however if the enjoyment comes from the entire collection of pieces or just a continued list of pieces evoking the same response then it could be called content, or I would call it content.

[@AdamYJ]

That be a fine explanation of content, lad! Now hoist the mainsail, we make way for the shores of Twitter within the hour!

[@b_jonz_n]

As an audience member, my understanding of what the word content signifies would range from anything informational/educational to entertainment/recreational... all of which can be displayed via photo, video or print.Ultimately, anything someone has created that passes my time can be considered content.I do like the differentiation of "consumption" versus "mere consumption."

[@StoneCresent]

"Content" as described here can be expanded from only internet media to all digital media. For example the assets of a video game are labeled as "game content" because of the multiple disciplines involved in the their creation.

[@godblissfulfun]

I call Idea Channel "Art" from now on and I mean it🔥🔥💯

[@selfreference2]

You interact with content in a different way than regular media. When you consume content, you are interacting with the internet. A view counter goes up. You like something. You post a content. Blogs also feel a little weird to describe as content. I believe this is why.

[@jacobrogers4474]

Coming at it from an industry perspective, I think I tend to use the word to distinguish all the stuff that is not content, but that consumes sometimes an inordinate amount of time when it comes to getting things done. So, let's say that one works for a big company with a website where lots of stuff gets published. Actually working for the company might involve dealings with the finance department to get funding for a project. Or perhaps working with HR to hire a new person and get them trained. Or maybe working on the technological back end that allows millions of people to all visit a site at the same time without knocking it out of service. When one is inside the industry, it can sometimes feel like one barely even interacts the actual stuff on the website, and there can be a need as a company grows to have a blanket term to refer to "the stuff" as opposed to all the other workings of a business that are "not the stuff." And content as a blanket term does seem to work pretty well for that precisely because it's so vague and covers all of the stuff. All of it.

[@jonathaneby1440]

I think the word means produced goods by creators. Maybe I'm not talking about the internet as much as others, but I think the association with the internet is subconscious for me.

[@the603]

This was really interesting because I view all media (movies, books, magazines, internet stuff) as content, but I've only ever called internet creators "Content Creators." So maybe there is some validity to the argument. However, I kept thinking on that "content is king" quote and how that it's vital for creative figures to always be creating. The entertainment industry is always looking towards the new project, what new content is being made that maybe in the coming years, everything will be "content."

[@Amberpawn]

The first time he said content... my brain automatically heard... "Yar... con-tent..." And I was confused because I knew he hadn't said it that way.

[@mebecjalt]

I think the main thing that defines "content" is the frequency or pattern of release. Content creators are people who are making content constantly. They may not release daily or weekly, but they release these smaller, more niche works with relative frequency.

[@NickCombs]

I work in the Content Department. We enable products on our website for purchase. Does this count as the same kind of content as that on KZbin? In some ways, I want to say yes. There's still a consumer experience attached, and a form of media (albeit in a physical form). However, I don't think the product sold counts as the content. Instead, that label is reserved for the item purely as it is viewed and interacted with on the webpage. It's still a dumb name for a department though. I don't even think most people in the company know what our role entails.

[@BetterLivinThruJesus]

this video was an emotional ride; I start out angry and wanting to argue but end up very satisfied with the idea you were making and the general emphasis. I do refer to other non-web media as content, and often think of my consumption of it in the same way I think of my consumption of web media. I don't deny the generally dismissive or otherwise distancing ideas of the "content" label, but my entire life I think I wanted to be a "content creator" much more than an "artist."

[@CameronMcManus]

Fantastic argument for your distinction! It's funny to have an idea channel topic with some lore and thematic development haha.

[@ElectricDidact]

As a content creator personally and an employee of a company that also sets about to create content, I feel like #content signifies media whose economic rationality is understood as being explicit and transparent. The paradigmatic feature is the share button, and hence the ticker showing the number of shares in earl time. This at least explains why some media (eg an indie film, a painting) are considered somehow not content. Those things are understood (regardless of the actual situation) as not bearing their economic rationality because they do not bear it on their exterior, as it were. So maybe that means that content isn't so much "internet" media as a subset of Internet media which is made with the predication of its exteriorized numerical/economic rationality in a social sharing environment, which is a variation on the economics of media.

[@falleneldor]

I was in Gamestop last week discussing what was DLC and what was on the disk and I had to literally pause and stop my self from saying the word "content" like a pirate. I only stopped my self from saying "content" that way because I was afraid of a judgmental glance from a stranger. Most people in my life know why I've taken to saying "content" like a pirate. Your mind control is effective bruh. :-)

[@mausmalone]

So just an aside - the word "content" is still really important and useful for those of us who do web development and design. We need a descriptor to delineate source code that connects to a database and renders pages from the stuff that is stored in a database and is rendered onto a page. How much of the look of design is content and how much of it is framework, and how do we store design with content in a way that isn't going to bomb everything when we change the framework? My assumption has always been that the use of the word "content" to describe internet content grew out of that.

[@musicNlyrics16]

Funny this video was posted today, because I just realized that I apply the word 'content' to some but not all of the things I create online. In my personal time, I blog and occasionally make KZbin videos. I do not think of these things as 'content,' but instead extensions of myself as a writer and curious soul. While I am at work and creating similar things for the company I work for (blogs, videos, and a few other things), I frequently refer to it as content. I don't have a sold grasp on the distinction in my mind, but I think it has something to do with the frequency, the purpose, and the audience. The audience I write for for work is clearly defined (at least more clearly defined than the few people that read my blog). I create content for work on a daily basis, but I create things on my own time when inspiration (or boredom) strikes. I make things in my own time to process the world and to play around with ideas. I make things at work to inform, to educate, and ultimately to gain influence (economic and otherwise).

[@rayz0101]

I think content is used primarily online due to the way we publish it in a non permanent format, where as most other non internet forms of content seem to have a physical permanence to them.

[@LauraCrone]

For me, the word "content" has always landed in a meaning almost exactly opposite to this "mere consumable" described both in this episode and in a recent Dear Hank and John. It's connected to things made exclusively for the Internet, but in a way that leans more heavily on them being user-generated. I hear "content" as referring to something that lacks a standard media format. TV shows, movies, newspaper articles, and even books are all made with the format at the forefront. Things like the length, the shape, where there will or won't be commercial breaks, and narrative arc are predetermined by what we think of as a TV show, movie, newspaper article, or book. Content, on the other hand, is something that breaks out of these predefined formats. Its length, shape, commercial breaks, and narrative arc are created from a level of scratch to best fit the thing being made--in short, the format is created to fit the CONTENT, not the other way around. Form follows function in a way that is specifically enabled by the lack of specific expectations in user-generated Internet culture, even when more traditional media outlets start taking part (like NPR's podcasts or SNL's online-only shorts).

[@lordkarel]

It's like how Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and Jeopardy are the same show, but Jeopardy has 1500% more content than Millionaire.

[@monsieur_chinchilla2657]

How do you explain the use of content like "contents of the backpack"

[@4tdsmith]

ahoy! "instagram photographer" - that line always gets my attention. when somebody uses the term "instagram photographer" or "content creator" the assumption becomes in some way that the platform begets the media and in turn, the platform also begets the creator of that media. it's a matter of perspective. for the people who share an interest in photography there is a very well documented historical lineage out there that works it's way into and comes from all corners of the "Culture". it's an established form so even when someone sees what I do on instagram and generalizes it as just some piece of content (yar), I know it belongs less to them than it does to the other people who treasure the medium. you kind of got to the heart of that. on the other hand, it may be easier to overlook, lose track of, or maybe even just plain difficult to see the historical, cultural, and creative perspectives that influence a particular piece of "new media" when the Internet and the world is just happening at such an incredible rate or because some "content" is just so out there beyond what's easily described. no matter what, it's just important to recognize and remind ourselves of the talent, dedication, and importance of educators, entertainers, and artists regardless of where they work. I've read a couple of people already making this point, but I think too that there is something comfortable about the catch-all nature of a word like "content creator". without people like you, it would be more difficult to speak about internet media without the clarity and depth you introduce to the conversation. you run a good ship, sir. I particularly liked this episode. tell the crew, good work.

[@ashkuigp]

So basically. In season two of American gods we should see all-consuming boundless the child of media: content.

[@ShadowWingTronix]

I have never used the word "content" to describe media. If I refer to something as a web series it's because it wasn't created for a TV channel (Netflix is not a television channel simply because some cable channels allow you to watch it through their box) or a webcomic because it's being read on a website rather than being downloaded (digital comic) or held in my hands (print comic). I am a cartoonist/media critic/article writer/video producer. That's what I create, not simply content.

[@C4s4ndr4]

I think part of the reason "content" gets applied only to Internet things is the way in which things are presented to you online. For instance, KZbin is a platform, a framework, into which users must insert content for it to have a purpose. The video uploaded is displayed in a box on the webpage as the part of the "content" of this page. A physical book by contrast becomes a separate entity once published. Its text is not displayed as part of a larger whole. It is not merely a bit of content on a page, it's a book. When you hold it, when you read it, there is only the book. The publisher's name and logo are printed somewhere, but you are not viewing as part of some bigger thing they have created. And so KZbin videos are the "contents" of KZbin, as they are objects embedded into it. In a similar vain, I have heard "contents" used to refer to the programming of a particular TV channel. As again this is a space that offers separate chunks as part of a bigger whole. But on TV you mostly still see the overall "channel" and the programmes as separate entities. They aren't integrated as things are on webpages. Perhaps this is why content sticks to Internet media more than offline media. Online, you cannot help but notice the bigger framework surrounding the piece of media you are consuming.

[@KHMakerD]

I believe "content" signifies non-traditional media, media that did not exist before the internet. Content is thrown around for webcomics but not newspaper comics, KZbin videos but not theatrical plays, podcasts but not radio shows. Content, in this light, highlights what is the new media, the new ideas that are "taking away" from traditional media.

[@roseopheliashepherd8379]

For me Content signifies the individual videos belong to the wider whole of the Creators videography, like the contents of a complation book, are the individual stories. Content implies an exploration and an opening, like exploring the contents of a bag, stumbling across a new KZbin channel with a great back catalogue does feel like this

[@asliwins337]

I've found I refer to media as content more when it contains ideas that need to be interpreted, discussed and considered. I consider the content of an academic work, _watch_ a mindless film. Content, to me, brings the requirement that the media in question contains something; more than mere media but an actual intellectual content. I've always felt many youtube media pieces are content because they're thought pieces rather than mass consumption media that isn't made to contain thought but rather made for 'mere' consumption.

[@ferpalaciosd]

First one of your videos that I've 100% liked in some time. Great stuff man, food for the brain. Great “content”, yarr.

[@jose_500]

i can see why you take the label personally. you make great videos. and being youtube 'content' shouldn't lump you in with videos of seals doing dumb tricks or wipe-out fails or whatever. your channel is the bomb.

[@jonasjiller]

This whole thing felt pretty contentious.

[@codekillerz5392]

I am content with this piece of content which contains the word, "Content."

[@MarkWGray]

I remember being in High School and our English teacher playing the film Tom Jones because we were reading the book. She played about 20 minutes of it then turned it off and said, "Ok. We can watch some more of that tomorrow of we get time." and I remember that really bothering me because she was treating this film as if it was something that could be consumed partially - just having some - like soup. To her, a film was just like cloth - something you could get by the yard, dismissing it's value as a work of art that should be consumed as a whole. That kind of dismissive consumption failed to respect the value of the work. And I think that is similar to what makes you bristle at the word "Content". It takes unique works (of art - why not?) and lumps them together into something that can be shoveled into the insatiable maw of us dumb audience. I think the solution, rather than call nothing content, is to call EVERYTHING content, like I do. I watch Netflix content all the time. I look forward to HBO's content. And Lucasfilm's content has taken an big upturn since Mr. Lucas put Disney in charge of it. don't you think?

[@puskajussi37]

As someone who isn't a native english speaker or think of the meaning of content that often I would describe "content" simply as the things people consume media (or anything else, thinking of it) for. Newspaper = media, articles = content, ads = not content. Wikipedia articles, radio programs, toughts derived from art installations = content. If someone buys a shampoo bottle just to examine the back label, it becomes content. So I suppose thats just a long way of saying I didn't quite get what you mean by "yarr, content".

[@arkwulf]

I like being referred to as a "content creator." There's a freedom in it; I'm not beholden to one media in my creation. Podcasts, videos, art, tweets; it's all content, and I am the creator. Works for me.

[@AntonioRAhumada]

God I miss early 2010s youtube, I miss Idea Channel

[@maattthhhh]

for me a content is something that has something to say that is discussion-worthy, and not just about "shits and giggles". For example, people who give actual thought and opinion in a certain movie, book, etc, that is well-discussed, is something that I personally think as "content". Reaction videos, unboxing videos, on the other hand, not so much.

[@acidxxlife]

never thought i'd get sick of hearing the word... CONTENT!

[@carlislehuntington8673]

I actually relate to this a lot. So I've wanted to be a writer since the second grade. But I've also always been interested in performance, music, film, and a million other things. So around middle school, when I really got in to Vlog brothers and KZbin at large, I thought being a "content creator" would be the perfect path to explore all of my various interest either directly through creation or vicariously through commentary and video essays etc. But I never did it. I've always felt so conflicted about it and I could never put my finger on why until now! I think somewhere in my consciousness I got the idea that as soon as I became an "internet personality" or "content creator" I would lose my credibility as a "serious writer" which is all bs because A. Who cares? B. I'm wasting so much time worrying about all these hypotheticals that I'm not actually doing anything! And C. WHO CARES!!! The entire appeal of KZbin, as with many internet communities, is that it's a place for real people to explore things they're really passionate about! And yet I find myself worrying about how to consistently "brand" myself and what my hook will be as a creator to set me a part to the point where I don't even try because I convince myself that I'm too unoriginal or too weird to appeal to a larger audience which is SO DUMB!!!! Anyway this comment is becoming obnoxiously long and tangential but I think it relates to the whole internet content thing. Before,KZbin and so many other corners of the internet were these secret tight knit communities where people could just explore. But now with more and more media taking over the internet it simultaneously creates more means to create high quality stuff and yet cheapens individual creations, making these labors of love feel expendable which in turn puts A LOT of pressure on prospective creators to justify their interest/pursuit in online media as a worthwhile (which usually means profitable) endeavor. (Oh look at that she sounded like she was gonna stop then just went on another tangent! Lol)

[@ryanharper6391]

Just watched the Patrick Willam’s video. Who else?

[@TheWarrrenator]

Content is a holistic term for consumable text but a lot of it up until now has been relied upon a sell-able format: a vinyl record, a VHS tape, etc. So Steven Seagal movies are content, but their relationship is often to measurable, sell-able units (movie tickets, DVDs, etc) in the past. Mike Hadreas/Perfume Genius is a content creator, but his music has been relied upon a history of again, consumable units: CDs, concert tickets, etc. The internet has provided a means to share creative works without the means of these items whether monetized or not. See, when creative work is reduced to pure information, it is easily shared without monetization or permission over the internet and that may have been the origin of the pirate accent of "argh! CONTENT!"

[@Nonov_Yurbisniss]

As a content producer, I associate the word "content" with production (specifically of the "mass-" variety), which on some level seems fitting for content producers of our era and the constant need to produce more stuff for one's audience to "consume". I sense a cause and effect relationship here, though I'm not sure which would be which.

[@jeremyolson6419]

So, here's a think: It's all about business and the relationship between the content creator and the content provider. There is a wall between these two parties KZbin does not go and pay people to make videos about making videos or adorable dogs or nuclear weapons; they attempt to attract them and they give them a platform on which to put these videos and monetize them, but the videos are not theirs, they just provide them. Whereas in "traditional" media that wall does not exist, the host is explicitly responsible for all of their content. When talking about it in those terms I have no problem with the word content, and it is useful in understanding the relationship between providers and creators of content. Other than that, yah I totally agree the definitional difference between content and media is pretty stupid.

[@joshuaw8873]

To me content is all the media that consume. Whether video games, TV shows, or various things on the internet, I've used phrases like, "quality content." And frequently I use in reference to quantity, like if a game is really long I'd tell someone, "there's a lot of content."

[@Dante665]

The first thing I think of when the word "content" is applied to non-internet media is "Table of Contents" in a book. I feel that the word "content" in the internet sense is probably an anachronism; a holdover from the days when the internet seemed small and quirky. That which was contained within the internet comprised the internet's "content," in much the same way the chapters of a book comprise its "contents." As technology has advanced and the volume of internet "content" has exploded, our "net speak" has failed to keep pace. While media contained within the internet still represents the internet's "content," the same could be said regarding all the chapters in each of the books in every library in the world: Were anyone to try and compile a master "table of contents" for all libraries, we would think them mad, and rightly so...but this is exactly the way the etymology of "internet content" has derived, and we give it a pass.

[@djfountain8210]

In all seriousness, it seems to me that content is just the generic plural for the information that any form of media presents, not strictly "Internet content" but books, movies, music etc; although, I agree that we should identify the differences between the form of content presented by the different forms of media, and the values the exposit. I do like your philosophy of "Yarr, content!", that all of this information is just waiting to be discovered by us the "consumer". I think it's very intuitive. Keep up the good work!

[@TheHypgnosis]

I always looked at the word "content" as a way to add a certain weight to material generated online... In fact, the opposite of what is mostly discussed in this episode. "Content" has become trendy to label experiences online as something elevated from a "random, whimsical" post, Tweet, blog, etc. So if someone has interesting material that stands out, for instance on Facebook, people refer to that person as making "relateable content", whereas if a person fails to distinguish their voice in the social media sea, their post may not even be referred to as "content". In this way, "content" is a value judgement, and for most audience members it seems like it is an elevating word rather than a degrading label.