It can't though. Books, printing presses, etc. are all forms of technology. Good content can't as easily propagate and proliferate without the infrastructure created by the tooling that supports the activity. You might be inclined to state that this belabors the point of being specific about modern Web technologies, but still - the medium is the message. They are still linked even if the underlying technologies change.
The Iliad and Ramayana were using the most cutting-edge information technology of their time, and spreading with the backing of the extant political regimes.
They were not competing with TikTok, CATV, and Disney.
Well, good tech can propagate even further and wider.
Nobody cared/cares (where nobody=very few) for the Iliad or Ramayama on the other sides of the world that created them.
But technologies created on each side quickly reached the other side or spread all over the globe. This includes primitive technologies which we tend to forget they are technologies like agriculture, the wheel, iron forging, etc.
"Content" has a pretty broad definition. In a social network, "content" is people (and what they post). In a search engine, it's documents (and what's in them). In an app store, it's apps.
If there was nothing worth reading online, no one would use Google. If no one was posting anything interesting on Facebook, it would have no users. If there were no apps worth using on the iOS store, iPhone wouldn't have nearly as big a market share.
You're looking at content in a very narrow definition. A database is content, as is a casual conversation with your friends.
>"Content" has a pretty broad definition. In a social network, "content" is people (and what they post). In a search engine, it's documents (and what's in them). In an app store, it's apps.
If we stretch the definition beyond any meaning, or to mean "input" or "data" in general, then sure.
Usually by content we mean news, music, videos, movies, writing, comedy, commentary, etc. though.
Not apps, office documents, or people's social messages...
>You're looking at content in a very narrow definition.
Me and most people using the term. Perhaps you're looking at it in an extremely wide definition?