Oddbean

@59034767 Back in the 90s when the web was young people started saying that in order to get people to look at web pages, and then come back and look at them again, they must have content. They must have something to say that people would want to read. By "content" they meant that -- something to say -- at a time when many people were putting up websites with no content but lots of jiggling graphics and other stuff to demonstrate their self-defined cleverness, but it was quite clear that they had nothing to say. You're n ot going back to look as yet another "animated" (ie jiggling") graphic thingy. So content was used to mean, well, content, as opposed not no content. It's got rather debased since then, but it did originally mean something.

@fb21ba87 Yeah, I see that -- and it still has a usefully specific meaning in the realm of design and UX, as several folks have pointed out here on Mastodon It's more the *mission creep* of the word, as it has leaked into the world at large, and the C suite

@59034767 I think the rot set in when people started advertising for "content-creators". That was getting it backwards. You don't, or shouldn't, start a web site and then look for something to say on it. You first have something to say and decide whether a web site is a good medium for saying it. You may hire writers and graphic designers etc to help you say it better, but they are not "content-creators".