[bediger4000]

Start with the word "content", which elides all distinction between word, image and video, implying that every piece can be thought of as a goopy pablum. Then move on to "consume", a lazy, weak word that is meant to subsume "reading", "viewing", and any subsequent thought or rumination.

"Consuming" "content" is by design less interesting than any of the actions that marketeers are too lazy or too greedy to name and promote explicitly.

[JohnFen]

I don't know if it's cause or effect (it's probably a little of both), but when "consuming content" became the way people talked about this stuff, it was a very bad sign for quality and interesting media.

It's just such a reductive and devaluing way to even think about this stuff that I don't see how it couldn't affect what people who think of it in those terms produce.

[CITIZENDOT]

i don't understand, are you implying i'm marketing something? what do i have to market ;)

i used the term "consume" and "content" because it covers all forms of content, "reading text", "watching videos" under one blanket term.

[bediger4000]

I am not implying that at all. You are using a marketeer's vocabulary when you write about "content" or "consuming content". That's all.

I am implying that vocabulary choice is indicative of a general lack of thought and consideration. I don't know if you made that choice consciously, but I do think that in general referring to "content" makes the material itself less interesting.