Entertainers. Show women/men.
Comment on Youtube has fully blocked Invidious
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 5 days agoWhy? What else would we call them?
isgleas@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 5 days 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 5 days ago
Then call them educators, or presenters… teachers, maybe, depending on the nature of their work
Tja@programming.dev 5 days ago
Yes it’s much better to use
“comedians/teachers/musicians/educators/entertianers/phonereviewers/sportscommenters/singers/journalists/programmers/documenters/analysts/lawyers/lockpickers/politicians/presenters/trolls”
… than…
“content creators”.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 5 days ago
What do you have against creators as a label? I don’t really see these difference myself.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
Or just call them Content creators
JackbyDev@programming.dev 5 days 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 5 days ago
Show women/men sounds like a 70s porno “medical” exploitation film
borgertwo@ani.social 5 days ago
Call them what they truely are. Digital panhandlers
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 4 days 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 4 days 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.
LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org 5 days 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 5 days ago
What a strange opinion.
Ilandar@aussie.zone 5 days 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.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 5 days ago
I mean, you don’t call it whatever you like, but content is the technical definition of it.
westyvw@lemm.ee 5 days ago
I agree with this a lot. I really do not like the term “content”. It is like going to a recipe for some “slop”, like using a term that is just a catch all for everything tossed on a plate.
Art is great. Movies, music are also fine terms. And so is simply saying they made a video. Watering it all down to the term “content” is just so boring and mind numbing.
sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 5 days 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 5 days ago
Words is funny sometimes.