this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
774 points (98.0% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
5397 readers
1931 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/[email protected] - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/[email protected] - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I kind of hate that Intellectual Property is a term that anyone other than lawyers and executives uses. Same as content and content creator.
I’d say these are web startup terms. When you’ve got a team that looks like:
Those meetings are gonna have “content creators” connected with lines to Articles to Feeds to Subscriptions and then a line to “content consumers” all in little boxes up on the whiteboard.
“Content creator” is a term for a fungible model of a person whose role in your machine is to fill the content tank so the subscriptions engine can run. How many content creators by Q2 of this year.
It's fallen into my lexicon as an convenient general term for something that spans multiple forms of media.
But I also agree that it feels a little gross to use. I'm blanking on an alternative at the moment... Franchise?
I have a conspiracy that it's part of a psy-op to make individuals feel like they somehow hold stake in the corporation, so they're more likely to support corporate decisions.