[johnnyanmac]

>"Content creator" is not a real job. That's something you do for fun.

This is dismissive. Some do it as a hobby or simply to expand their reach (even Tim Walz had a few gaming streams this year), but the people making real money easily put 40+ hours into analyzing trends, understanding their audience, preparing content, editing media, and overall being a business person. Those CCs very easily be the hardest workers in any sort of communications company, but that's not how the market works these days.

I suppose by that metric, most of HN just working on some website frontend or server backend are just typing away for easy money

>considering that the entire rest of the society spends all their time ranting on social media and not doing actual work.

well, no one wanted to give me a full time job this year. Gotta do something between the Workday applications draining my soul and the boring Leetcode practice.

[tolerance]

The two comments ahead of us make sweeping generalizations but they're valid ones. They aren't comments made just to look busy at the shop.

You can argue that the kind of "progress" or "inequality" that's being discussed was pushed forward by a social justice grifter culture that came to form online in the last decade.

Producing "content" for a living is just the natural evolution of the social justice grift, where "$peaking truth to power" becomes just "$peaking", to anyone, on anything, in a way that yields societal or institutional development but of a kind that occurs indifferent to its effects on mankind.

Social media has virtually destroyed the image of the academic. By virtue of steadily being assumed by demographics who have a peculiar relationship with social media and technology in general (mid-to-late Gen X and Millennials), Academics are adopting personalities more like YouTube streamers and people who make "content".

Academics were at the forefront of the initial social justice grift that contributed to our nascent grift society and the institution will continue to evolve to accommodate this shift.

Young women (young black women in particular) took to the social justice grift hard. So it makes sense that they'll make their new home in academia and young men who were excluded from the social justice grift, will pursue other options and get their "grift fix" elsewhere.

[johnnyanmac]

>Producing "content" for a living is just the natural evolution of the social justice grift, where "$peaking truth to power" becomes just "$peaking", to anyone, on anything, in a way that yields societal or institutional development but of a kind that occurs indifferent to its effects on mankind.

You do know that "content" can be anything from a glorified marketer for some designer brands, to a tech blog talking about computer architecture, to an indie movie director trying to break into the industry, to Khan academy helping to fill gaps or offer alternative education right?

Throwing all "content" as some need to make a political statement on Twitter really shows the generational difference in how people use the word. It's way too general to make any sweeping generalization that I'll buy into. You need to specify to make a concrete point here on what "content" you don't respect.

The rest of what you talk about really has nothing to do with why I replied. I don't really care what "content" t you don't like. Life is about accepting that not all things Will appeal to you, nor want to appeal to you. I'd just rather you not conflate stuff like 3blue1brown with whatever feminist you have a bone to pick with. Both are "content creators".

[tolerance]

Your activity throughout this submission leads me to believe you have a great deal of investment in this subject...somehow.

I was trying to reconcile between the comment that you were responding to (and its relevance in relation to the one that it was responding to) and your own (which was relevant also irrespective of your disinterest in entertaining its relevancy).

> I'd just rather you not conflate stuff like 3blue1brown with whatever feminist you have a bone to pick with. Both are "content creators".

To me it feels like we have similar things to say about the ambiguity of the word "content", but when I speak on it I'm conflating things. But when you're speaking on it you aren't doing anything other than correcting me on my perceived conflation.

Is it because my framing is different than yours that it's unworthy of legitimate criticism? That would suck. Because everything that you did say in response to what I said that reads like criticism on the surface makes me feel more confident in the things that you didn't address.

If you're able to, why not put your perspective on life into practice for me. Engage the part of my comment that has nothing to do with why you replied and doesn't appeal to you.

Evidently I'm in error somehow, but you withholding how I am from me because you don't care about what I'm wrong about does us both a disservice as human beings trying to figure out the present world's terrain.

[johnnyanmac]

>Your activity throughout this submission leads me to believe you have a great deal of investment in this subject...somehow.

I wouldn't say that. This is something I tend to do in many topics on HN. My only investment is "I'm lonely and I use social media as a faux conversation piece with others"

>But when you're speaking on it you aren't doing anything other than correcting me on my perceived conflation.

Well neither of us is giving a concice definition to begin with. My was by design becsuse I think there is no precise definition of "content" nor "content creator". It's someone who takes the time to produce some sort of creation, often with the goal of sharing on social media. The content can be nearly anything from there.

>Is it because my framing is different than yours that it's unworthy of legitimate criticism?

I already explained that part. You want to criticize "content" without a precise lens to begin with. It's like criticizing "books" because you didn't like Atlus Shrugged. There's lots of books not by ayn rind, that is fictional, that has pictures, that takes different framing on the world, etc. So saying "books are taken over by social justice" simply rings hollow.

>criticism on the surface makes me feel more confident in the things that you didn't address.

Sure, because I said I don't care about your main point. It's simply a topic I care not to dive down again. Hence, my Apathy.

>If you're able to, why not put your perspective on life into practice for me. Engage the part of my comment that has nothing to do with why you replied and doesn't appeal to you.

I will not. I made a specific reply to someone that wasn't you, you chimed in, and I choose to focus on my specific point. For reasons above.

I wish you a good day.

[tolerance]

I'm criticizing "content" on the grounds of its vagueness and what this vagueness represents:

the homogenization of what used to be referred to as distinct cultural practices and social behaviors, and how they are now being packaged under a single commodity: "content", and how this influences the institutions that traditionally support a culture and its society.

So I reckon that's my definition of "content".

The most basic actions that people used to perform as a part of their daily life are being packaged and experienced alongside obvious commodities and their effects (film, advertisements, etc.)

Everything is being shoved onto online platforms and made to appeal to the standards that suit those platforms and the character and personalities of the people who participate in the "content" economy are stripped of their individuality.

And all of this occurs downstream of whatever the outcome of the Trump/Musk tryst is.

Thank you for you're time. It's been a pleasure.