I’ll take the name Content Creator over Influencer any day.
Comment on Youtube has fully blocked Invidious
LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org 3 months agoAnd while we’re at it, stop calling them ‘content creators’
dumbass@leminal.space 3 months ago
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Why? What else would we call them?
LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org 3 months ago
To answer the “why”, it’s because the word “content” is kinda meaningless. Instead of making films, documentaries, talk shows, reference guides, cartoons… it’s all just this generic “content” slop that’s just there to feed the machine
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 3 months ago
What a strange opinion.
Ilandar@aussie.zone 3 months ago
It’s not that strange, I have a friend who literally said the same thing today in reference to one of his favourite channels shutting down. He preferred to call the stuff on this channel art, rather than content. I agree with the person above too, the term has always bugged me. It makes it sound so mass produced, like your job is to just produce meaningless “content” for people to mindlessly consume. And to be honest, that’s exactly what the mainstream YouTube culture is about.
sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Not really. The term “content creator” is corporate speak. Google’s ad-based business model has a binary classification: content and ads. It’s not an inaccurate term, but using it implicitly endorses the corporation’s binary world view.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Words is funny sometimes.
isgleas@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Entertainers. Show women/men.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Showman/woman refers to a pretty specific type of performer, I.E someone who is on stage typically.
Entertainer isn’t a label I’d necessarily apply to educational content, for example.
LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org 3 months ago
Then call them educators, or presenters… teachers, maybe, depending on the nature of their work
JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 months ago
Not all content is entertaining. Someone who makes tutorials I wouldn’t call an entertainer. That’s why “content creator” is used as a catch all term to cover all of it.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Show women/men sounds like a 70s porno “medical” exploitation film
borgertwo@ani.social 3 months ago
Call them what they truely are. Digital panhandlers
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 3 months ago
That’s pretty insulting, a lot of what YouTube creators do takes real skill, and it’s a full time job for many.
borgertwo@ani.social 3 months ago
In the past maybe, but certainly not these days. It’s overglorified corporate money grab propaganda, that goes around shamelessy guilt tripping viewers when truth is spoken. Much of these so-called content creators do not much else than making face react videos to something they saw and just talk about their likes or dislikes. They get paid lots just to make a soy-jack face and shitty clickbaits. The amount of money some them get paid is large sums insane for little efforts in proportion to what worth it actually ought to be. There people out there putting real efforts and labkr to contributions to society to keep it running that paid squat in comparison. Its sad really. Go ahead downvote me, it doesn’t change the truth i speak.
Skates@feddit.nl 3 months ago
Right. Call them youtubers! Wait…
meldrik@lemmy.wtf 3 months ago
What is the alternative name for someone who creates content for a platform?
LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org 3 months ago
Well, we start by referring ta work not as “content”, but as what it actually is. Then work from there. For instance, one could ostensibly call Ahoy a filmmaker or a documentary maker.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 3 months ago
… Which is a type of content.
There’s a lot of content that doesn’t fit neatly into a category though, because it was made by someone turning on a camera and making a video without worrying about any commercial concerns. So calling someone like that a creator is a catch all term for anyone making content for a platform.
LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org 3 months ago
But don’t you think it’s a bit reductionist? We read books, not analogue text content. We eat meals, not nutritional content. We listen to songs, not rhythmic euphoria content. I don’t think it’s about commercial concerns - in fact, the term ‘content’ to refer to anything and everything is the ‘commercial’ way of putting it.
Someone hitting ‘record’ on a microphone and jamming on a guitar is still music. Why should we treat video any differently?
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Bruh that dude is a CONTENT CREATOR, not a filmmaker 😂🤣🤣
His internet videos are colourful animations meant to serve ads while capturing attention and summarizing Wikipedia articles giving some thoughts on them, and I love them, but it’s called content for a reason.
LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org 3 months ago
“Bruh” is not a strong opener to an argument
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
Do we need a general term? Someone who uploads their videos to a video platform is probably a “video producer”.
www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Conten…
www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Creato…
catloaf@lemm.ee 3 months ago
So what should we say when discussing people who make video, audio, text media?
I see their point about “content”, where, on YouTube, for example, it devalues the videos as subordinate to YouTube as a platform, but I think as people use the word “content” it loses that connotation.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
video → video producer
audio → musician, podcaster, … depending on the type of audio
text media → author
rain_worl@lemmy.world 3 months ago
!!!