I think ‘content’ comes from ‘contain’ – which essentially means ‘to hold together’ (con-tenere in Latin). So for me this comes down to who patrols the borders of whatever is deemed to be contained; who delimits in advance what that content ‘is’ (and so it’s question of ontology also – and, of course, borders and walls and ontology aren’t unrelated). So Dave is right i think to suggest this is a question of who is given or gives themselves the authority to say or delimit what and where content is; who can give (themselves) the authority to say this for others. I’d suggest ‘process’ might be a place where we think about how such borders are always-already permeable. But I’m not sure about ‘content’ being a print concept, unless we’re taking print to also refer to the manual (but also mechanical) transcription of religious doctrine (and as such where content and doctrine come together).

This is a question about technology though, technologies of reproduction, which in turn suggests that ‘print’ cannot be tied to it’s more conventional, industrial, meaning, but should be opened into questions relating technology and materiality (what is actually impressed or imprinted when we think of the digital – is there still a coming together of force upon matter which leaves a mark or trace?). This is a messy, but interesting subject. It would make a nice paper (if I ever had time to write papers that is!).