Taken out of its context and vastly oversimplified, the word "content" can certainly seem problematic.

But if we consider the semantic continuum from data to information to content to knowledge to wisdom and including metadata and media, what term would you prefer?

"Content" is a word with important semantic meaning.

Please feel free to check out my definitions, etc at https://cygnustechnologyservices.com/services/services-enterprise-content-management-process/.

Any useful definition (or implementation) of content must include content type, not just because it's "right" but for pragmatic reasons like enabling then analysis of the consumption of content types. Sorry, but a lot of vitally important content is created and maintained as a business. That's not wrong or evil; it's pragmatic and necessary. For example, high-quality medical content enables physicians to provide much better care. It saves people's lives.

Providing great tools that help people create and share content necessarily involves process steps like draft, review, and approval. And the creation of these tools absolutely requires a lens that is capable of managing all content using the same mechanisms while keeping in mind the differences that make each content type unique.

This piece borders on political correctness, i.e. you shouldn't say that because it's offensive to this group or that. Awareness, sensitivity, and empathy are good things, but telling people what they can and can't say ... is not.

Content is a good word with a specific, useful meaning [my definition]: "Content is information that is expressed or delivered to an audience via a specific medium (e.g. speech, writing, still or moving images, etc) for the purpose of expression, communication, or commerce."

My suggestion? Let's call things what they are.