>>12985920 Content itself is beside the point—as the very use of words like content suggests. The moment you start labelling every single piece of writing in the world “content,” you have conceded its interchangeability: its primary purpose as mere grist to the metrical mill.
In other words, “content” reduces publications and writings to a sort of pap fit to be piped through the “tubes” of the internet.
See also Courtney Love's open letter to Steve Case and search for “content provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term “intellectual property” is also biased and confusing.
However, as long as other people use the term “content provider,” political dissidents can well call themselves “malcontent providers.”
The term “content management” takes the prize for vacuity. “Content” means “some sort of information,” and “management” in this context means “doing something with it.” So a “content management system” is a system for doing something to some sort of information. Nearly all programs fit that description.
In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating pages on a web site. For that, we recommend the term “web site revision system” (WRS).
