☠ 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.

[@brockmckelvey7327]

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

[@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."

[@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 :)

[@LimeLimpidGreen]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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."

[@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".

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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).

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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."

[@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.

[@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.

[@UTU]

While I agree that 'content' is for 'mere consumption' (and not defined by where it is located), I think that the term has value as such. 'Idea Channel' is on par with cheap direct-to-DVD films and the like, it is here to be merely consumed. Sure, you can dig into it and find value (which you can do with anything as stated in this video) but the main difference is the intent. Idea Channel does not approach the viewer with intentional 'hidden meaning' like most art-forms do, it is easily digestible, even if it holds some ideas it presents them in such an easy to find way that it is BY NO MEANS 'real art', it is 'merely consumed'. The video had a comparison between steak and popcorn, in which case 'Idea Channel' is akin to a protein shake.

[@AntonioRAhumada]

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

[@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.

[@AdamYJ]

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

[@gdnght_grl183]

As a musician, I've never heard people call any music "content" exactly, but there are plenty of people who definetly mean to call pop/electronic music as content, they just haven't had a word for it until now. These people who mean to call certain music "content" suggest that since you made "the most accessible music" with "the most accessible tools", it enables you to create music like it's content. Artists usually create with the intent of making consumed art, while Labels usually distribute with the intent of providing content, but this isn't absolute. I see consumption and mere consumption as two dynamic pieces of an ever-changing pie, based on reception and an artist's intent. Both pieces play a role in making up if the music is content or not. Mixtapes aren't 100% content, the song order can be an artistic choice. Current bands' music isn't 0% content because they are still making more music to be -potentially merely- consumed by fans. I think only for something like Kidz Bop and Now That's What I Call Music with its 90+ editions has so obviously indicated to the world that they are content made for mere consumption, which has interestingly been a pretty exclusively offline thing for the longest time.

[@src248]

I ignored the warning and played the content drinking game. I am now deceased.

[@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.

[@IceBlake]

I've always thought of the Content and the Sea analogy to be more about comment sections/forums. Consumers search through comment sections for treasures, or good responses. Content is any media adrift in a sea of discussion. This lends itself to internet media more readily because of the nature of its creation and environment. The more disconnected the original media is from its discussion, the less it is content. I think we're coming at the consumption vs mere consumption from different angles but arrive at the same conclusion.

[@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. :-)

[@codekillerz5392]

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

[@emosp0ngebob]

To me , 'content' describes a form of media which has a certain amount of interactivity with the 'content creator'. Unlike film or TV or music, We as audience members can post comments here, and you reference them and discuss them in your response videos. Someone blogs, and I can comment on their posts. I watch TV and I can talk to my friends about it, but I can never comment on the show's TV channel, or a film's credits.

[@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.

[@michaelislost7164]

Content feels Homemade. The difference I feel is that "content" has a quality of craftsmanship or value that "media" doesn't.

[@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.

[@steveothesane]

I honestly never thought about the term outside of "stuff".

[@rowtow13]

Regular people don't use the word "content" that way because they don't care about it the way websites and services do. To something like HuffPo or KZbin, "content" is what brings eyes to the website and makes money. It's their product. It is what the website contains to keep it alive and profitable. This does make blog posts and videos feel "cheaper." Like they're bait to lure you to a website. That's also why you don't really think of a video game or a book as "content." While GameStop and Amazon are interested in having you visit them and browse, they are ultimately interested in you buying the thing and taking it home. They're not quite hosts for media. (Except when they are, I guess. Which is why Amazon's video service has "content.") They sell media and other things to an audience, whereas KZbin sells ads to advertisers. That's ultimately their product.

[@GuyWithAnAmazingHat]

To me, the word content just means what it means in "art is about form and content". Content is only the non physical half of art, the meaning and message within the physical form, the medium. Form and content just means medium and message.

[@SiGeTVee]

I think you just convinced me to rewatch all those Steven Segal movies...

[@arbiteroflaw]

I don't use the word "content" in the way you're talking about here, but I think it's just because I've always used "stuff" instead. As in, "Have you seen The Oatmeal? That guy's stuff is really funny and clever." Or even, "Mozart is fine. He has some good stuff and some that I don't care for." This new word seems equivalent to me. The two words even share the notion that the substance in question is inside something. The contents are stuffed in the container. Content is stuff. They even share the connotation that it is something meant to be consumed by an audience. Da Vinci's stuff includes his art but not his war inventions. I would argue that so does his content.

[@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.

[@Pacier]

I SEE YOUR CRITICAL ROLE GIF

[@Lycandros]

I feel very similar when someone refers to *us* as consumers. Like we're a vast swarm of locusts devouring whatever we can see without thought or consideration. It seems to just underline the complete disconnect between the people with money (or the capitalism we currently have) and how they view everything. While everyone else wants to be a part of something, hence why Patreon works. It is, in a way, a community.

[@TCJones]

content is not about the content of the content, but the way in which it is consumed.

[@MPKampersand]

getting some major semantic satiation here

[@ChipMatthews]

My understanding of the word content in the way it's commonly used is that it describes the stuff that fills up a particular platform thus making it have value to the eyeballs that platform wants to attract. I see it as related to the gig economy in which large corporations or entrepreneurs figure out ways to crowd source, well, content. I think it has a bit of a negative stigma and connotations because for a long time there was no way for the individuals who turned these platforms (like youtube) into popular and profitable destinations to monetize their individual efforts. In exchange for really nothing more than bragging rights, corporations and entrepreneurs enticed people to make money for the platform, and thus for them, rather than for the actual contributors. That stigma no longer really applies even though it persists. My own experience as a "content creator" came from creating assets for Second Life, something I initially did for the fun of it and to show off, but that eventually turned into a lucrative business once it became possible to monetize it. In that case I was quite literally creating content, but also content that many people couldn't understand the value of. Was I being exploited? Was I exploiting others by selling them "virtual goods"? The concept was alien enough in the early 2000's that I was interviewed by newspapers and was a guest on NPR to discuss it. I think when it comes to KZbin, even though many KZbinrs have become millionaires and hugely influential and are backed by major advertisers, KZbin content is still seen as amateur, because much of it is, so no matter how intellectual or well produced it is, in the popular perception it doesn't exist on the same plane as television, movies, and so on. When it comes to the crowd sourced portions of the internet, (or virtual worlds for that matter), creative endeavors are judged by the most prurient, amateur, outrageous, lame, or completely indecipherable to adults, examples. Even though people don't judge the contents of a bookstore by the contents of the porn shop on the same block, they DO still judge the internet that way.

[@Greenkrieg]

As the old people say, nothing on the internet is real. It's just a toy and that's why people say it's just content. "why are you on the internet why don't you go out and read book or listen to a record?".

[@emmabaker8358]

There is definitely a culture around "content". So much content is niche because the Internet is so varied, whereas mass media is just that- for the masses. I don't think it's the platform but rather the audience, internet culture, and, of course, the vast economic powers that be shaping the usage of the word. The more money is put into something, the more the powers that be are telling you to watch it or appreciate it, the less likely it is to be called content. This is why Netflix is not content while fanart is. The Internet sphere and therefore Internet media are held to different standards. It is, after all, an "information superhighway", and people normally go fast on highways. With so much to digest on the Internet, it's convenient to lump it into a single label. The democratic, power-leveling nature of the Internet bumps up against the very stratified power structure we have in real life. Content is not as important because we collectively have taken our assumptions about the Internet, the people on it, and how things "should" work and applied them.

[@KravenErgeist]

Sounds like a classification error. Sorta like what the guys over on Extra Credits talk about when it comes to gaming genres. Technically, Call of Duty and Portal are both FPS games, yet they bring two vastly different experiences. Still they are categorized together, because the genres are classified not by how they make you feel (like with romance, comedy and action films, books and other media), but by the perspective through which they deliver the experience.

[@ArsenicFault]

I always looked at "content" as a very Web 2.0 word, to mean "the thing people use this service for". Facebook is the service, people and their pages are content. Same with KZbin. Maybe it's not the standard meaning, but in that way it glorifies "content creators" above the "service providers".

[@jeffjeff376]

My understanding of the use of the word "content", is that it originates from aggregation sites. So many sites rely heavily on sourcing "content" from external sources, with an intense pressure to keep the content slop pouring in. Long form media (movies/games/series) is an event on sites like that, spawning dozens of articles over days or weeks or even months. Short form media is mere content for individual stub posts, hoping to generate some fraction of ad revenue in this weird internet media ecosystem of like/share/subscribe.

[@joaoscaldini105]

It is an interesting view and since I have a small website destinated to culture and literature, everytime I think about different things to do I get the problem with the short-life of things in the plataform and the way people understand and valid the material disposable on the website. Basicly, if it is online it is not as important as a printed thing - for a book, as an example.

[@depauleable]

I think the word content implies only that whatever is desscribed by this label is contained within something. But still I agree with the way this video takes the word.

[@dominus9335]

I get the feeling content in the way it's being phrased might be viewed as a lesser experience as it floats along everything else; If content doesn't stand out, it'll simply drift along with the rest. If you make fluff, make amazing fluff. If you're making an uber-article on deep subject matter, same story. While I wouldn't define content necessarily as casual, there's a...fluidity in obtaining it. Even if you consume individualized media, there's a connectedness missed from the internet: Big or small, One site or message can lead to another and turns into its own adventure. You could argue the same could happen in library/music store situations, but I think the scale on online is much larger. So yeah.

[@Liz-pc3dc]

To my "frenchness", the way you (and the people who posted comments) talk about the word make it seems derogatory. But let me tell you that I quit watching TV (and all it's "content ") because of the agonizing lack of quality / interest / respect etc and even worse was the high dose of invasive ads. I chose to fill my free time with quality "content" like what you're doing here. So, thank you for your work, keep up, whatever others call you 😉

[@os44881616]

I feel like content bestows a more technological, cold, economical "vibe". Saying "He/She is a content creator" vs saying "He/She is a film maker" (for example), feels like the difference between saying "I own a few shares/stocks/whatever of this business" and saying "I am one of the owners of this business". One is more personal, more involved, while the other seems more digital, and because of that less personal and less significant.

[@Hetnikik]

I don't even know if "Content" is a real word anymore!

[@renaudbardet6699]

I don't think the distinction is really meant, it's just as you said that content emerged from user content and the wording just hasn't evolved very quickly, but I think it will, and with it the value we give to it ; kind of like when novels were mere journal fillers, before becoming a full fledged literary genre.

[@LucasHutchinsonIsGreat]

I have viewed content as the building blocks of media. Let's plays are a type of media and commentary on a video game is the content. Content is medias contents if you will.

[@JenCoYT]

So I get your point about signifying as apposed to meaning. I think people using "Content" is signifying the truth of our consumerist culture. I use the word content because I think it best describes all the media I consume in a lazy generalising way witch is a natural evolution of language. The distinction between old media and the internet is just force of habit because we were used to using all the different words before this culture took over so much and I would like to see more use of the word content to describe old media as i think it is the most honest word to use at this point in history.

[@jeffsimmons9373]

I think the functionality of the word itself is also economically-based, not just a way of describing something as economically "consumed." A content creator is basically shorthand for an information-age polymath. The content creator does all kinds of stuff, independent of any media paradigm, and usually manages aspects of their content outside of the content itself. I think the reason for this shorthand is in part due to marketing and culture. For instance, I don't usually say "Idea Channel has a new piece of content out." Instead, I say they posted a new video. I think "content" and "media" are used in very similar ways, but you can distinguish them from a marketing perspective, and plan different strategies or think differently about them. I can basically bet money that I'll be able to view any "content" at any time, simply by looking it up, but "media" has a time and sometimes a place to be consumed, and has advertising that is specific to that... uhh... medium? I also think the terms "content" and "content creation/creator" are more "meta" than "media" in the sense that they seem to originate from the perspective of the creator, not the audience, and have since been adopted by the audience, particularly due to the fact that the audience is often made up of content creators, or at least the audience has the potential, since anyone can do it. Our language itself shows our curiosity and interest (for what is at best a culture of DIY creativity, and at worst, pathological narcissism). We now have a huge audience of artists observing art, which has shifted our language to that of artists. When I started playing music, I would tell bands I liked "great set!" after the show, but I don't think that was a common thing to say in the 70s when less people were playing music. Now everyone knows what a set list is.... I'm not sure how well I articulated my thoughts on this, as they weren't all that clear to me when I started typing to be honest, but I hope you get what I'm saying.

[@LaceNWhisky]

Obey, consume, reproduce, and conform.

[@Mariusioannesp]

Just today, I referred to Netflix TV series as content.

[@GunnarWahl]

I think that some of the title of Content Creator come from the Creators themselves, such to give there work a more sophisticated title then youtuber or let's player. Content Creator is the Waste management and disposal technician (garbage truck collector) for all things internet. As are many things, these things are often a two way street or maybe the snake eating it's own tail.

[@munumun]

nutritions vs taste and content(?) vs information. there is a consumption of food analogy somewhere there but i am too sleepy to think :(

[@brotherpanda]

I'm not content with the term 'content'....for me, it means an individual's/group's created works that have become popular enough to seem mundane to certain consumers.

[@alexisfa13]

As a non native English speaker, this whole "content" idea seems like a cultural or made up concept. I do use the concepts of content and content creators, but only when I talk in English. Back in my native language, Spanish, we just say "video makers", "podcast makers", etc. If asked to talk about Mike Rugnetta in Spanish, I wouldn't describe him as a "content creator", but as a person that makes videos and podcasts on the internet. Same goes for KZbin or Netflix shows. They are seen as simply shows, just like tv shows. In that sense, we use "Fox show" just like "KZbin show", in that we're simply specifying where that show came from, but they are all shows nonetheless.

[@ahmedabdalla8849]

Out of curiosity, what word would you suggest to describe consumption-able media as opposed to mere consumption-able content. (PS I suggest consumables)

[@thomaspalmer1927]

I think your appraisal of "yarr, content" is fair, and it echoes google's definition: information made available by a website or other electronic medium. Still, I hesitate to set its meaning in stone. It seems likely that the label will grow, more media will be swept away into the ocean, and the distinction will fade. Either way, the birth of this new meaning is important in how it describes media's internet boom - varied, largely nondescript, and immense.

[@darkalter2000]

An interesting view, I think I agree with you.

[@Leedark3]

I feel it should be more about the variety. Content is what someone makes when you can't describe what they make as something more specific. It is more prevalent online because content creators online are more diversified. You do KZbin videos and a podcast. Others stream and make videos. Some people write a blog and stream. I would not describe Disney as a "movie company" because they do so much more than that. (Perhaps I wouldn't call them content creators, either, because content seems to apply to media of some kind, and they also do theme parks and merchandise, but that's beside the point.)

[@muotes]

I'm not sure he's getting the practical definition of 'content' correct. I don't think it's really about the internet vs irl material, but about the easily categorizable vs. internet-age forms of media. Aziz Ansari is not a content creator because he's an actor, and we already have words for the things he creates ('television', 'films', 'theater', etc.). Mike Rugnetta IS a content creator because what he makes are some fusion between an academic pop-culture lecture, freewheeling philosophy discussion, and linguistic analysis. There is no word for that, and so we call it 'content'. Same goes for Twitch streamers, KZbin makeup tutorialists, and anybody who makes anything that is not a physical product and doesn't already fall into a well defined media niche.

[@RandallStephens397]

In the middle of all the philosophical rambling, I keep hearing this derision of so-called content consumption. What I hear sounds like "you young kids these days don't know how to appreciate a real work of art. It took me months to read War and Peace and that time and effort makes that art objectively better than any of the thousands of digital pictures you favorited on the deviant arts--pictures you never even look at ever again!" It strikes me as not only condescending, but also dismissive of new forms of art simply because of how little time each individual piece of "content" is given. I would argue that because our ability to communicate has improved in not only speed, but in the complexity of the ideas we can communicate now. I don't need to go read War and Peace because I can find a KZbin video of someone analyzing it--I can probably find dozens. Because the Internet has enabled rapid communication of complex ideas across enormous populations, it's no longer the ideas (everything consumed in content) themselves that are as important as the synthesis of those ideas with all the other ideas also being consumed. This is how the Internet spawns things like Philosoraptor or video game/anime crossover fanfiction--ideas combine in novel ways and the successful ones spread throughout our culture, ultimately with real-world effect (as mundane as the mass-production of a Doge t-shirt to as absurd as the Emoji movie). manYellingAtCloud.jpg

[@aaronsmith5864]

yeah here's my problem with that you make it seem like the internet Is filled with a bunch of Tolstoys when it's not. absolutely there a great and wonderful things to see and do online but for every 1 Tolstoy there's a 100,000 people who should probaly never be allowed within 20 feet of a keyboard. what I'm trying to say more or less is that war and peace is not good because it's long its good because it's written by Leo Tolstoy who was a very talented writer who but a lot of time and though effort into writing that book. Whereas the picture of the piece of toast someone posts on istagrams takes no effort and no thought and all of those crossover novels are almost certainly written by people with less talent than Tolstoy had in his pinky finger.

[@skullz291]

Randall Stephens I agree with your initial sentiment, but I think it's really the other way around when it comes to information and value. Information that compressess well spreads quickly on the internet, but you most certainly do _not_ get the same meaning in less space. It's definitely true that there's no "right" way or medium to express something, nor does something being longer or shorter make it more or less meaningful, but you definitely _cannot_ get the same experience reading War and Peace from watching someone analyze it. This is one of the dangerous things about the internet, in my opinion. It gives you lots of information and opinions without context or nuance, because actively seeking out those things is much more difficult. The fact that compressable ideas spread well on the internet does not mean all ideas are compressible. Quality is something separate entirely.

[@MK.5198]

I see what you mean, but I don't think that mike is placing a value judgement on "mere consumption" as he puts it in the video. Or if he did by accident, it's not consistent with the image that Mike's been putting out so far, and so my brain threw it away without even noticing.

[@RandallStephens397]

You miss my point--I don't say that any one piece of "content" is as good/important/whatever as Tolstoy. My position is that derision of consumer-grade content doesn't see the forest for the trees--it's not about individual pieces of content, be it Tolstoy or a piece of toast with Bob Dole's face burned into it, but about the complex interaction that content has with all the other pieces of content out there, and the vast amounts of it we're able to consume.

[@MK.5198]

ah, I do. I was to focused on the first paragraph.

[@MK.5198]

I think that I agree with your reasoning Mike, except that my experience of the word "content" has been pretty different from yours. I think you've seen it used a lot more in the way you describe it in your video than I have. In my experience it's much more ubiquitously used the more definitional way, meaning "the contence of a thing." This is particularly true in more academic circles; or at least, communities more dedicated to thoughtful analysis. I wouldn't exactly consider my "circles" "academic" but they are certainly more than surface level thinking about stuff. We use it as such: "The content of the book" "the content of the plot" "the content of the film..." ect, ect. Thats how I see it meant the most. Though to be fair I do see it used in the way you describe here, and when I do, I am so fast to adopt the biggest and most piratey scare quotes possible and say "☠content☠"

[@Ichithix]

Content to me means soulless product churned out by the peasants of the internet to line the pockets of the internet's masters. Some of those peasants do pretty well for themselves relatively speaking, but ultimately it's just a virtual expression of where capitalism has led us, the masses as financial livestock, there to be milked for our revenue and cared for only enough to keep us from drying up.

[@existerequo5349]

I feel like "content" produces the same idea in my head as when someone says "junk food". Not that all media is junk, but that it's "non nutritious" and "forgettable". LIke... When someone writes a book with a lot of intent and care and purpose it ceases to be "content". It becomes... a creation. Content is thrown around all the time. Like almost every channel has to do. But creations are to be seen only when ready. Like a great game, or book, or movie. Makes sense?

[@MRmeomania]

I think content is when an established creator makes a "thing" , as in me, just a casual user, make a "thing" mine is not a content because there are no other contents to dintinguish or compare to. So mine "thing" is just a "thing" until I make more of it

[@bobsobol]

I think books contain truths and stories, and while _Movies_ contain "spectacle", _Films_ contain artwork. The internet has contained all my TV, Cinematography, Radio, News, Books and Magazines for so long, and I don't really "engage" with most of the "social media" it _also_ contains, so... When I see a book on physical paper, I just feel sorry for the tree, and when I last saw a movie, I missed the pause button and toilet breaks. I think their contents is as much "content" as anything YouTubie.

[@docoza]

Someone's been skipping over the "Table of Contents".

[@Kenkire]

Content to me: Types of entertainment/education that can not be categorized as anything else. It can't be a tv show, it's not on tv. Nor can it be labeled a book, art, or the like. Personally, I don't think I consume Yar, Content. I watch educational shows or funny videos. When I watch things on KZbin, I'm not doing a million other things. the most I'm doing is eating. But this all might have something to do with growing up before computers were common.

[@SolinoOruki]

I'm convinced!

[@roguenite6494]

I personally think the nature of content vs. not is one of parts humility and parts bewilderment. I think the humble part can often just be the appearance of humility. The youtube channel that creates sketch comedy don't call themselves writers, actors, comedians. I think it's some small part because they are all these things and more, but also because such labels are distant and conventional. They're saying "we're content creators, we're not actors", "what we create isn't on that higher level", whether they believe it or not. I think this is because part of the appeal of youtube channels is their...I'm struggling for a word that isn't humbleness. Essentially, they maintain, "we're just people who stumbled into this" rather than, "we went to RADA", thus closing the distance between their audience, seeming more like them. A kind of intimacy. The bewilderment part is quite simply often individuals just not knowing what to call themselves. How to characterise what they do, because it is so new.

[@raflydaffaldi3570]

Jared from wisecrack says what's up

[@Agent719]

I wish I'd seen this last week. But hopefully I'm not the only person have this view on the subject. I view Content, as "internet content" and "creating content" as similar to "things In a box", or, even better, the things in a magazine. Or a book for that matter. (Table of Content). When someone would create their own website, the things they would put on it, in it, was its contents. That is what people would come to the site for. And when people would finish consuming what was there when they found it, they would be less likely to come back until new Content was created. So, be it a deviantart, fanfiction, or KZbin account you are creating Content for your own account to get yourbiwn following, as well as creating Content for the website at large. --- This doesn't really happen in the physical world, aside from, for example, newspaper and magazine columnists, because books, movies, music, and art in general exist as their own thing. Movies are not only seen in theaters, they can be purchased for home viewing or viewed anywhere the owner chooses to allow it to be viewed. Authors write books for individual people to purchase and read at their leisure, they do not write a book and deliver it to a library where it is to stay. --- So, I guess the Tl;Dr version is "Content is the thing that brings you to a place for the purpose of consuming it" and "the difference between internet content and 'physical' content is the physical content can be consumed entirely individually while internet content requires 'going to' The Internet"

[@rotinoma]

I don't share this definition or view of the term "content" but I guess I'm not into this content creator scene. Maybe I'm old, but I call all that media, online or not, content. A long time ago (...1997?) I wrote a blurb (pre...blog days !) about content on the internet, where it is distinguished between "design" of a website versus the "content" of a website. I guess nowadays it's a moot distinction.

[@ItThatSleeps]

I see any media that is made to be consumed as content whether it's intended to be consumed or merely consumed. that said when I refer to something as content it's usually because it either doesn't fit into any specific category or fits into multiple categories. I'd consider you to be a talk show host because your content is, primarily, a show where you talk. I'd call Game Grumps content creators because it's simpler than listing the categories their content falls into and individuals like Bread Face would be called content creators simply because there isn't a name for the kind of content they create

[@shraka]

Interesting. I thought calling it content was a good thing. I find the online media I consume is more 'content' dense than traditional media. It either has a stronger educational component, new interesting ideas, and/or is more personal. Movies and most TV is flashier, with less meaningful 'content' per minute. Traditional media is more fluff, and often doesn't rise to the level of 'content'. Maybe the one flaw here is that I don't call a documentary content... Perhaps I should start.

[@zenon3021]

to me, the word "content" is synonymous with "stuff, mostly of low quality"

[@danr.5017]

In fewer words. "content" is s cynical marketing term for thing that holds audince attention. Everything is lumped together because if you are an advertiser weather your addas are shown to the right people. This can be measured though retention time. What is drawing user retention doens't matter when you get to bras tax. If I watch A techy channel then click over to the person's website have demonstrated that that content may be likely to sell me on some computery nonsencse. At the end of the day peopel who use "content" only care about the odds of selling thier nonsencse. Without wanting to do the mental work of complexy understanding thousands of YT channels, blogs, webcasts twitters and so forth.

[@Sophistry0001]

Is a musician a content creator if they record a song or perform a live show?

[@ceulgai2817]

This video is a great example of why I sometimes wish you were here in the room with me rather than presenting me with a 10ish minute video. I'm not going to lie, Mike, I thought this discussion to be highly problematic, but the 10 minute argument barf (in this case) makes it hard to go back and point out issues with the video because after such a distance from the start, it would feel intentionally "nitpicky." I love the show, but, this one, seems... what's the word... "inconsequential"?

[@TradePaperBackEnjoyer]

I hate the word "Content" as well because I don't know what determines the level of content. If one video is longer than another but they accomplished less during the longer video, which one has more content ? People say the Witcher 3 has more content that no man's sky but what if no man's sky has more code and procedures running at any given moment, does it then have more content than the Witcher ?

[@CDMudd]

I'm surprised you never touched on "Non-Content" which I've seen used by some creators to signify a pointless post. I've seen non-content to meaning something out of their usual schedule, a video of some random thing, or just sharing a meme in a sudden way.

[@_ch1pset]

IMO, ALL content is art. Sure, an article about the newest celebrity diet might not seem like anything anyone would consider an art, but I argue that if anything is created specifically to affect the lives of others, it should be considered art. This includes all forms of content. I would go as far to say that all content is art, but not all art is content. For instance, the underlying code behind a video game could be considered an art by my definition. It satisfies that criteria of being created to affect the lives of others, but code is not to be consumed by the end user, but still used in some capacity. Idk, I've had a couple of drinks, and maybe it sounds dumb, but to me, all content is art. I take offense to the sentiment that, "art is to be appreciated and content is to be consumed."

[@caloboyle9388]

I think the denotation of 'content' sadly cheapens things that might otherwise be seen as great art or criticism or commentary. It is a convenient word but I think it's too broad and yet somehow reductively specific. That's not to say that the things most commonly called 'content' can't be appreciated as art/criticism/commentary/comedy but I think much like the terms 'entertainment' and 'pop culture' it more often than not it implies a vapidity to a large diverse swath of things. Things that are GOOD and deserve more revere. I think the issue that we'll always run into with these terms however is their convenience, and how at certain points they do specifically describe large groups of things that can be difficult to categorize.

[@trippingpug5513]

But what do we call content creators if we don't call them content creators?

[@soythelubu5389]

i think content means anything worth the time to "use" (watch, read, heard, etc) while something that isnt content isnt worth. perhaps this vision is from mainly speaking spanish.

[@mirtul1]

KZbin is the medium, videos are its content. Books are the medium, their content is scripture. A box may be a medium, what's inside it may be content. This is about the very basics of media philosophy. We may say something like "Every content is again a medium of other content." which would be very McLuhan-esk (but is not a direct quote of him, please don't misinterpret) or we may just leave it like it is. As part of the Extended Mind debate Adams and Aizawa criticized a paper of Clark and Chalmers, claiming cognitive processes can't extend into, say, scripture, because it lacks non-derived content. The brain, they claim, functions with non-derived representational content. In this context content is merely used to distinguish from the larger medium. So, in the light of this, what is a content creator?

[@shadebug]

Woahwoahwoahwoahwoah... that was a pirate accent? I always thought that was some sort of media mogul voice like if an older Charlton Heston produced talkies. There's definitely a better actor to use here but I can't, for the life of me, think who. Definitely snacking on a cigar though.