i want people to stop using the word "content" to mean literally every kind of work or any kind of creative endeavour that was persisted in any kind of medium
And, btw, i realize that we used to have a different word for the same concept: whether it was a song, a newspaper article, a theater play, it was "a piece"
so why does "content" feel so much worse?
@meena perhaps because 'content' declared itself contained, putting the real emphasis not on the 'piece' as an element of some communicative whole, but on the box. The thing doing the containing is implicitly centralized.
@feonixrift @meena "Content" is for consumption.
A piece implies that it is a piece of something. Most commonly "art" or "music" (which is implicit.)
Content as a descriptor carries implications of ... sameness? Of unimportance.
A piece is unique. Singular. Content is a grey blob consuming all it sees.
@ajroach42 @feonixrift i like (or: understand ;) that distinction.
thank you.
even the language of so-called "intellectual property" is more respectful, referring as it does to "works", "a work" or "the work".
this relates to a point where I diverge from some criticism of markets, since the term "commodity" in these circles is used for any thing or relation that has fallen into being bought & sold.
those who deign to consider markets in more detail differentiate unique, branded, or proprietary goods from goods traded more fungibly, adhering perhaps to a standard, but with indifference as to source or supplier
'content' fits into this last category, as if it were FCOJ.
@meena @ajroach42 @feonixrift
(FCOJ == frozen concentrated orange juice, used here as an example commodity)