A content writer provides the raw material that makers of communication networks need if their machines are to be used. I am a content writer.
The machine makers have no interest in the purposes the machines are used for. They make machines. The machines make them money.
The makers of the content moving machines make money, but they don't use the money to buy content. Content is free. The people who produce content trade the use of their content in exchange for being able to see the content of other people.
Here then are two basic classes: (1) the producers and consumers of content (2) the makers of the communication networks who neither produce nor consume content. The costs of running networks are paid by advertising, advertising costs are added to price of products advertised, and are ultimately paid by the producers and consumers of the "free" content when they buy those products.
The makers of communications networks have absolutely no interest in anything other than making communication networks, and spending or investing in new networks profits derived from that activity.
For makers of communication machines content is good if its increases traffic between content providers and consumers, bad if it reduces traffic.
Whether it is good to go on creating new more efficient communication networks is a question not decidable for makers of communication machines: it is a question of content, and they do not "do" content. They make the machines of communication because that is what they do. Relevant is the question, does the machine carry traffic, is it profitable?
They don't care that the content on their own machine might very well be mocking them, holding them up to ridicule for their behavior as automatons. Content, or to be specific, the content of content, is irrelevant to them.