Here’s what Richard Stallman had to say about these terms in his 1996 essay published in “Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard, M. Stallman”¹:
Content
> If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all means say “content,” but using it to describe written and other works of authorship embodies a specific attitude towards those works: that they are an interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it treats the works themselves with disrespect.
> Those who use this term are often the publishers that push for increased copyright power in the name of the authors (“creators,” as they say) of the works. The term “content” reveals what they really feel.
> As long as other people use the term “content provider,” political dissidents can well call themselves “malcontent providers.”
Creator
> The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly compares them to a deity (“the creator”). The term is used by publishers to elevate the authors’ moral stature above that of ordinary people, to justify increased copyright power that the publishers can exercise in the name of the authors.
Note: I have a paper copy of this book at home but I found very hard to find this text on the web via Duck Duck Go or Google. Thankfully, the Wikipedia article had links to the original.
Since RMS said it, I have no doubt that it reflects the general consensus of people on HN, but in general terms it seems a bit out of touch with reality. No one actually uses the term "creator" to imply some elevated divine right to copyright power, nor does "content" imply " an interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money". This isn't how people think or act or use this language in the real world.
I think that’s his own particular sense of humour coming through. I don’t mind such idiosyncrasies in his writing as I know to expect it but I would agree that it’s not the best way of communicating to appeal to a mass audience (I’m upvoting your comment as it seems like you’re being unfairly downvoted). While RMS is a great thinker, he’s not the best spokesperson for the Free Software Foundation.
Content
> If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all means say “content,” but using it to describe written and other works of authorship embodies a specific attitude towards those works: that they are an interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it treats the works themselves with disrespect.
> Those who use this term are often the publishers that push for increased copyright power in the name of the authors (“creators,” as they say) of the works. The term “content” reveals what they really feel.
> As long as other people use the term “content provider,” political dissidents can well call themselves “malcontent providers.”
Creator
> The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly compares them to a deity (“the creator”). The term is used by publishers to elevate the authors’ moral stature above that of ordinary people, to justify increased copyright power that the publishers can exercise in the name of the authors.
¹ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf
Note: I have a paper copy of this book at home but I found very hard to find this text on the web via Duck Duck Go or Google. Thankfully, the Wikipedia article had links to the original.