user-generated content is…

In his blog, Derek Powazek immediately attacked the term “user-generated content.” He felt that the term degrades the idea of someone adding their two cents (or five dollars, depending on the person) to the internet. Powazek feels that when someone posts a picture, blog post, product review, etc… on the internet, it should not be seen as random input. Rather than this, he thinks that this input should be respected, and taken away from the frighteningly generic label of “user-generated content.” “Calling the beautiful, amazing, brilliant things people create online ‘user-generated content’ is like sliding up to your lady, putting your arm around her and whispering, ‘Hey baby, let’s have intercourse,'” says Powazek.

Frankly, I can’t agree with Powazek more. Using the term “user-generated content” reminds me of what happens when something drastic happens in the world, and the government needs to give it some kind of generic term that looks good in the news. It gives being a part of the internet community this feel of classification and exile, being a seperate part of the world entirely. To be realistic, the internet is becoming more and more public everyday. There’s just more experience to be had online than there ever was, and it’s going beyond being marketable. Being a generally cost-free experience aside from paying your monthly connection fee, the internet is now seen as inviting; rather than being some place that only computer nerds and sci-fi geeks can embrace. There are more people, and even more forms of input going in and out of the online community. To label the result of this interaction as “user-generated content” is synonymous to calling it “that crap people post online.”

-dan

« whilst we ponder

unfair to fair use… »