I got all of that, I just found the David example to be distracting from and unrelated to the more interesting argument that you're making, which I do agree with, and which I think you summed it up neatly here:

> I just realized it's silly for me, an individual author to refer to my work as "content" when I could just as easily say "book" or "blog posts."

▲

firefoxd a day ago | parent | next [-]

As regular reader of his blog, the David example worked for me because I felt revulsion for a second. I had to double check the URL to make sure I was reading the right blog. "When did he embrace the LinkedIn broetry?"

Which, I believe, was the intention.

▲

mtlynch a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I appreciate the critique!

Sometimes when I'm thinking about a blog post, I fall in love with a joke I want to use, but then it constrains how I think about the topic. I still like the David example, but I'm too close to the post to have a balanced perspective, just having finished it today.

	▲	ptx 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It made perfect sense to me, FWIW. Paintings, sculptures, blog posts, HN comments, etc. are all examples of different things that can be reductively viewed as "content" by those who only want to exploit them for profit, just like the illustration shows. I don't think the article is saying that these things are all the same.