No I don’t think that’s what I’m going for.

To me content often implies a kind of volume of work. Always be posting. Don’t miss a few days or your viewers go elsewhere. Lots and lots of content!

The concerns of a product are the salability. Is has to fit perfectly into a 22 mins slot. It can’t upset the wrong people. It has to fit the mood and culture that our advertisers want. Etc.

You seem to be violently agreeing with the parent commenter. What you're saying matches their definition.

No, it doesn't. You get good at something by doing it a lot, consistently; it's basically rule 1 of learning any artform.

This still doesn't contradict the framing of "art vs content".

It absolutely does for a movie.

Of course it implies volume - shipped volume. Which is what you worry about when you think about posting every day: viewers going elsewhere is a commercial worry about your product, it has nothing to do with the quality of your art. When you think in terms of content, art quality becomes an optional byproduct of commercial worries about having product.

Your point is valid (and I make a similar one frequently), but it doesn't gain from being presented as good term vs bad term use. It's the context that makes it pejorative.

In the context of advertisers, content is just what you deliver for a price (Netflix, Disney), or against which you slap advertising (Youtube). You want more of it so you can charge more, and care little what fills this content pipeline.

This is a great example of when pulling out a dictionary implies that you've lost the argument, because if people were using the word in the same sense as the dictionary definition, you would have no need of the dictionary to “prove” the meaning.

User toyg is using the same definition than Richard Stallman (I tried to find the relevant essay but can't; I just remember RMS also pushed back against "content"). Toyg is not making up a new line of thought, this has been argued before. Not only by Stallman, either, this dislike for the term "content" is also espoused by some here on HN (and I agree, to be clear).

I think it goes beyond latching on the dictionary definition, and really looking into how platform owners see the bits they push around. It's not about being "clever" with words to score a point, but actually about the meaning we want to give art, be it novels, drawings, music or shows/movies.

If they said “platform owners” I'd give them credit for that, but they didn't; they said “anyone”.

Context matters.

Also, "platform owners" (or advertisers, as another comment puts it) managed to install this term and so most of us use it, so it's no longer just platform owners. Which is why RMS railed against it.