Did someone forward this to you? Click here to subscribe and have more editorial thinking delivered to your own inbox.

Dear reader,

I went back to SXSW this year–not for client work like when I was in my early twenties, but as a speaker on a panel my team and I put together (recording coming soon). Of course, the question we got a lot was, “How’d you do it? How’d you get your session selected?” We put so much thought and effort into the topic, for one. But we also went into it wanting to avoid anything that felt self-promotional–something the SXSW organizers told us factored heavily into their decision to give us a slot.

Instead, we focused on creating a panel that would be beneficial to the audience first and foremost. We chose honesty and debate over middle grounds and blanket agreements. And it seems this was one of the reasons why many attendees claimed it to be the “best session all week”. I’m happy to hear it, of course! But I also feel like there’s so much more I would have liked to say.

It takes constant effort to find space for deeper conversations in a world that believes shorter is better. During our prep, my fellow panelists even brought to my attention that I give “long” answers to questions and should consider being more concise.

You know what though? I don’t care to be concise as much as I care to be thorough. I don’t want to just give quippy, regurgitated answers; I want the golden nuggets to be discovered throughout a story, along a journey. I want to help others think through things themselves, so they may be better off in the long run (not just in this instance).

It’s no surprise then that I believe in preparing well for any kind of content I’m about to deliver–be it in writing or live. And that’s what you’ll find below: My thoughtful answers to the moderator’s preset questions. Notes I wrote, edited, and revisited during early mornings, late nights, quick bites, and long airplane rides in the few weeks leading up to the event.

What can I say? Take the time to read it through. There are some good nuggets in there ;)

Is the Internet broken? Is it in a state of crisis?

The panel description–and the title itself–talks of broetry, content farms, and TL;DR. Can you unpack that for us, and explain why you believe this adds up to a broken Internet in a state of crisis?

What I would have said: The idea for this session really came from my personal experience with the Internet, and as we continue to speak today about things like AI, I want everyone to remember that this has been a long time coming. This development of content without meaning or, even worse, content with bad intentions did not start recently.

Broetry, for example, is a term used to define the short, one-liner type content we see from what people call "the bros" of LinkedIn or Twitter. I personally find it a bit insulting that someone thinks my attention is that short, and also a bit distracting to follow–but what do I know, I just work in content.

Content farms are exactly what they sound like: tech-driven mills producing content that not only comes in large quantities (they're built for the purpose of creating more content than others), but is oftentimes created to be incorrect just to induce more engagement. You know those DIY videos that end up not working and making people angry? That's them.

And, last but not least, TL;DR–a myth so rampant that it's changed more than it should. The idea that something is too long to read is an emblem of what I consider to be wrong with the Internet. More specifically, not only recommendations that are incorrect (people don't have short attention spans for quality creations), but also pushy creators who don't realize or even care about the longer-lasting ripples their actions and messages create.

Put all of these things together (along with many others that I haven't mentioned yet), and you have an Internet that’s simply not conducive to the society many of us want to create.

• A place that requires too much effort to actually learn from.

• A place that prioritizes quantity over quality.

• A place that distracts us with promises of wealth and success as it reduces the intellect, intuition, and creativity of our people.

Who has the right to define that the Internet needs saving? Surely it’s an amorphous thing and deliberately uncontrolled?

What I would have said: I don't think it's about a responsibility to define what it is or is not. I solely believe we have a collective responsibility to define the values we wish to uphold. Adults spend an egregious amount of time online, and kids even more. It's not about how you're contributing to the Internet–it's about how you're contributing to society.

Because you know what's deeper than people simply learning your tips and tricks? People observing and mimicking your behaviors. And I don't think enough of us sit and think beyond our own profiles, days, metrics to ask ourselves, "What are the principles I’m inadvertently communicating? What is there beyond what I can consciously see, and how can I better understand that in order to contribute to a better future?"

Who gets to fix the Internet, and how? Who is responsible for making the Internet a better platform?

What I would have said: Each and every one of us is. Both those creating the content and those reacting to it. Even as a consumer rather than creator, you cannot sit and watch. Just like in society, your inaction is a contributing factor.

As for those that do create, I've always believed that if you have the potential, then you have the responsibility, as well. If the potential to do better is there, then your responsibility is to strive to achieve it.

AI and content farms

What role should/could AI play in the creation process? Flavia, as editor-in-chief of Brandingmag, you come at this from a different perspective. Tell us about that.

What I would have said: I've worked with thought leadership all of my career, and Brandingmag is built on that pillar. No sponsored content, nothing. Just solid editors doing their best to support contributors from all walks of life; contributors willing to divulge HOW they do things for the education of others.

That said, we had to draw a line when AI reached the accessibility levels that we see today. What do I mean by that? We took a firm stance that while utilizing AI for things like research can be acceptable, utilizing it to actually generate the content for you is not. We believe in human-generated content.

The struggle comes in places like editing. Let me give you an example. If you're using an editing platform to improve your writing, you must be conscious of a couple things:

1. That system is not only trained on grammatical rules–which is what you're probably using it for–but also on how everyone puts sentences together. Meaning that, like with any other AI today, it's based on patterns that already exist. You'll never really create one of those miraculous sentences that doesn't follow the rules but is absolute music to someone's ears–the kind of sentence that people not only share on social but remember you for.

2. If you're not actually paying attention to the alterations being made to your content by this algorithm, then you aren't actually learning anything. Thereby not improving your writing skills at all–it just seems like that on paper.

I'm not here to tell people what to do when it comes to AI, I just want decisions to be made with a very clear and conscious awareness. Otherwise, you’ll blindly follow the media who, of course, will tell you to leverage AI because it's an absolute gold mine for the organizations that run the show.

To go back to the editing example for just a second, when we as human editors work with our contributors, we never tell them exactly what to do with their content. We always prompt them and give them feedback that guides them towards their own evolution. Very different from AI, and I think it's a great analogy for what is happening across the board: less evolution on a human level. Technology is evolving while we are not–some would say we're actually taking a step down as the rest goes up.

Why now? Why has AI become the large-scale trend that it has at this moment in our evolution?

What I would have said: This is one of those questions where the journey matters more than the destination. Contemplating this question should be on everyone's list of priorities, for nothing is coincidence or done by chance. I recommend taking the time to think about the bigger things at play here. It doesn't matter what I think–I cannot answer it for you. The only thing I can probably say is that things are released when they’re most likely to succeed in the desired way, so don't accept things at face value. Do your due diligence and questioning.

What are the risks/benefits of using AI? And using it at scale?

What I would have said: Imagine a body shop for fixing cars, whose owner is looking for a new mechanic. 2 candidates walk in:

1. A guy that has been passionate about cars since he was a child

2. Another guy that heard you could make good money from being a mechanic and decided to give it a go.

The passionate one will be a bit more of a hassle for the owner because he will question things, come up with new ideas, perhaps even do this in front of customers on occasion. The opportunistic one will copy things by the book, take all the learnings he can from the owner, and feel like a walk in the park.

Now, I'm a business owner, and I would take the passionate one any day of the week. I know that's the kind of person that will see beyond the immediate, will think creatively when new issues arise for our customers, and will ensure that my business doesn't run into the ground as things continue to evolve.

Many folks, however, would not make the same decision. They say they want passionate people, but they hire based on ease and quantitative output more than anything else. A short-term view.

More important, however, is that many people are acting like the opportunistic mechanic. They think it's enough to simply copy some frameworks or formulas and don’t take the time to explore and invest in themselves beyond surface-level abilities.

As AI scales, who becomes more replaceable? It won't be the creative one because the AI cannot replicate that. The opportunistic one, however, will be overrun by something that can not only do what he does, but also do it faster and more seamlessly. For me, that's a risk I'm not willing to take.

Replacing things with AI means giving all brands access to the same materials. Everything will plateau, and guess where brand leaders will go for the differentiation required to pick up the pieces? To the same people they tried to completely replace.

What are the ethical issues surrounding AI?

What I would have said: My biggest issue is honesty. I want to know when AI was used to generate something and when it wasn't. When I recognize that somebody has used AI without stating it, I get this feeling that I've been duped. Because I appreciate great writing, for example, and that writing didn't come from them.

Prompting for me does not count as content creation. You haven't generated anything new, first of all, but worse, you cared so little about the output that you didn't even put in the effort to go through the process yourself. I don't align with those values.

Content, quality, and the democratization of creation

Flavia, you’re a writer and editor by trade. You’ve called the wealth of content online “an ever-expanding sea of fluff”. Do you think the bar is set too low? Can we do anything about that?

What I would have said: God, yes. When Mr. Beast videos are the most successful pieces of content on the Internet, yes. When generalizations and platitudes garner more traction than anything profound, yes. I'm not saying there isn't space for both, but it's currently imbalanced in a detrimental direction. I think content that is useful and full of knowledge should be what leads, with the other types sprinkled around here and there.

What are you doing differently from others to stand out with your content creation?

What I would have said: I practice what I preach by divulging HOW I do things. And I don't just mean the final, resulting framework or method–the culminating moment of my experience thus far, let's say. I try to create content that takes the audience on a journey of discovering the reasoning and hierarchy of values that led to whatever my resulting "recommendation" is.

I believe it’s the mindset with which you reach a result that makes all the difference. The intention you have before, during, and after communicating what it is you have to say. My biggest concern is that people will miss that part of the lesson. That they’ll focus too much on copying my recommendations, when there are probably many known or unknown ways of doing things, and it’s people’s internal approach that actually matters.

Why is mindset more important than frameworks when it comes to the act of creating?

What I would have said: A mindset prepares you for the unexpected. A mindset is wisdom rather than knowledge. It's adoption and transformation versus mere recital. Frameworks are fantastic for giving you an example of a structure, but that structure will only be conducive to your success long term if you first adopt the mindset it stems from.

I always use Keanu Reeves to describe this growing trend. Our society is shifting (at an exponential rate, mind you) towards a perception of values. When you look at Keanu Reeves and yearn for success similar to his, you won’t look at every step he took (e.g., schooling) to get to where he is thinking that's what you need to achieve the same result.

Instead, you’ll ask yourself, “What are the principles that got him there?” You’ll observe the values he portrays through his behavior rather than what he did. It's the same concept as people being increasingly concerned with the values of the organizations they buy from. That's all about mindset, too, not about frameworks.

I always say that you can give someone the framework, but it will only last them so long. Things evolve, and you need to be able to make something of your own out of each shift. Funny enough, many people are not concerned with this for every time there's an update in the framework, it's a chance to sell more. (Similar to iterations of technology.) You teach them a mindset though, and they won't need you after a while.

This is why I like the saying above. I equate mindset with someone learning to fish, and I opt for teaching that as much as possible.

How do you define quality? What parameters are you working with?

What I would have said: There are metrics for content quality, of course, but in the spirit of focusing on mindset more than frameworks, I'm going to say this: To me, quality is equal to willingness. I don't need you to be the best writer or speaker–what I need is for you to be willing to share how you think, how you perceive, and how you do.

Most of my days involve driving home this point, so that thought leaders give me the natural, good stuff I need. After that, editing feels easy. I'm known for turning even "shitty" streams of consciousness written on airplanes into gold. Why? Because the quality is there to begin with. Any good editor will tell you that we can work wonders with passion and integrity.

But the concept of intellectual property has remained in areas where it no longer fits. The belief that what you own is an idea, what you think, makes no sense. Do that, and AI really will come for you… We are not our thoughts. What makes us unique is our experience, drive, observation, perception, acknowledgment, style, effect, etc.

You must pull what is inside of you out to best position yourself for the long run. That's the true measurement of quality–not the actions taken outside of your Self. Those can be looked at, but they should not control you or your decisions.

What are some of your ideas for ways we can safeguard human-generated content moving forward?

What I would have said: Lord have mercy, basically anything that balances the narrative. I repeat: I don't care what you do with your creativity so long as you understand what you're doing with your creativity. The moment the outside is controlling your creativity is the moment a red flag should go up.

I really believe it would help to have more people educating creators and thought leaders on this process rather than just producing template after template, platitude after platitude. My ideas for safeguarding are not so much steps as they are initiatives. And the best thing I can possibly do is manifest my beliefs to the utmost extent.

For I honestly don't believe we're in the attention economy anymore–I believe we're already shifting to an intention economy instead. And I know that I have no personal interest in taking advantage of any situation, so if people hear me out and think things through even more as a result, then I've done my duty.

This is one of the reasons why I keep my intentions pure: because I know that's what we'll be assessed on more and more.

Should content creators make with intention? How?

What I would have said: Oh, hell yea. I don't even understand why you would or how you could create something without intention. A good benchmark is always utility for the audience and lifespan for the creation. You must think in helpful, long-term ways if you want to assess whether intention (in the most positive sense of the word) is present in your act of creating.

The future of the Internet is everyone’s responsibility. You want to benefit from it? Take care of it.

A good question to ask yourself is "why would someone bookmark and reference this piece of content for years to come?"

How can brands ensure that content is relevant and not just regurgitated brand marketing?

What I would have said: So, this is the entire ethos behind my premise. When you think of a brand strategy, you can see that both narrative and verbal identity work are encompassed in these nifty packages that are neither very long nor in-depth.

Combine that with the fact that most companies jump from brand narrative and what they call "messaging" (although it's so high-level that it doesn't really serve its purpose) directly to product marketing. Now, you tell me: How are marcomm teams supposed to create quality content that is profound and outstanding when all they have is a combination of a few thousands words to go off of?

The solution I’ve found most useful is breaking the brand narrative down into specific propositions based on the "how’s" (the approaches) of thought leaders throughout the organization, across all levels. They're the ones thinking about your brand’s work with passion each and every day. They know pain points, for example, that customers don't even realize they have. And they also know which angles to take to position yourself more precisely.

By architecting a content ecosystem built on specificity and people, you make all of your communications both more practical and authentic. There's nothing better than that.

Creation and the future

How do you see the future of content creation and the creator economy? 3 hopes for what you'd like to see?

What I would have said: I don't believe in hope because it implies some kind of desire for control upon a universe that is always on your side. So, I will say this: The universe has one priority and that is evolution. It wants you to evolve. It wants us to evolve–not just the tech we use. This is one of those moments in history when nature pushes back hard in the opposing direction of a wave we've set in motion, and you can see it happening if you consciously observe what's around.

That said, evolution happens in a vertical fashion, which is important to note here. A lot of what we do with tech involves taking what exists (the horizontal) and applying order to it. GenAI is no different. Rather than remain there, you want to look for the things that will move you vertically. Because unlike the duality we've seen thus far, we’ll soon witness this one level being split into two. It won’t be two sides of the same coin anymore, and no one will be able to remain where they are. Everyone will transform in one direction or another.

You would think then that my "hope" is for as many people to realize that as possible, but I know the right amount will. And I feel I am responsible for contributing to that realization. All I want is for everyone to make more informed decisions. It pains me to think that someone will wake up in the future with any kind of regret. Like hope, I don't believe in regret either.

Some people might call this a romantic point of view, but it's probably one of the most objective and natural law-abiding things said all session.

Remember: I'm a writer by trade, and I’m here to tell you that we're not all up in arms because we're losing our jobs or thinking selfishly. It's because we're trained to reflect upon ourselves and society, and we see beyond the immediate.

[END]

What do you think? Reply to this email with your thoughts, and let’s have a lengthy conversation!

Stay human,

Flavia Barbat