I heard someone knock the term “content” itself. The person said “content” seemed too generic, even formulaic. I think I get it, but I don’t really bristle at the term. To me, saying “content” is slightly more descriptive than stuff. Like if I want to refer to books and music, content seems like a useful descriptor.
And so here we are.
Humans are very visual. I read that like half of our brains are used for visual processing. How is that determined? I have no idea. But, like, there have not been big efforts to like simulate scents (Willy Wonka notwithstanding). Given that humans are highly visual, it serves to reason that computers have screens, and the majority of media is for eyes. Specifically, we read text or look at images, whether still or moving. Indeed, the only mass media that is not seen is heard, and the only things that are heard are either stuff like podcasts (or audiobooks, I guess) or music. Sight, on the other hand, is foundational for books, movies, visual art, video games, and ….I dunno, comics? The point here is that seeking media content online seems to necessarily involve finding mostly visual content.