Thank you to the author for questioning this ridiculous terminology

"Content" implies there is something else, besides content, that is found on the www

It's garbage, not The New Yorker, for example

When data collection, surveilllance and advertising is the sole "business model" then traffic is the business goal, not "content" (The New Yorker does not rely 100% on advertising, it also has subscription revenue)

"Content is king" but it is not an absolute requirement for traffic

That's why "Big Tech" companies are intermediaries (middlemen), they do not need to create "content"

Website operators without content have been buying traffic since the early years of the www

The www is infested with middlemen with no content

They profit from traffic

Content makes good bait for traffic but Big Tech cannot charge subscriptions for it because it isn't theirs; they have to pay for a license