4 ms·

I've always seen Youtube as much higher quality than facebook. More than being accessible to everybody regardless of being logged in or not, their players have

by cheeze 8y ago

I've always seen Youtube as much higher quality than facebook. More than being accessible to everybody regardless of being logged in or not, their players have always been top notch for me. I've always associated Facebook videos with low quality content that I see scrolling through a newsfeed, and FB video has always been noticeably buggier than Youtube. The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB. If I want to binge something in the background or watch AvE tear apart power tools (seriously, he's awesome) I go to Youtube. I've never gone to Facebook when I wanted to watch video content.

joe_the_user 8y ago
It depends on how you measure things. Youtube is a higher-quality video content site. It has lots of experience serving this type of content. But as a social network, Youtube is gutter-quality, the worst of the worst. The kind of social network whose more disgruntled content providers are literally trying to murder the people running the site and whose comment section is infamous for being something like the most awful part of Internet.
- mattnewton 8y ago
  I feel like the reference to the San Bruno shooting is detracting from your point. There was one incident still under investigation, and your commment pluralized and generalized from that. I agree with the sentiment though, I remember during the 2016 election debates in the US, watching the YouTube live comments fill up with Unicode-art swasticas and depictions of people with turbans and bombs being shot at from behind a wall, and just incoherient expletives and slurs peppered in between.
  - losteric 8y ago
    Youtube seems worse because the comments are public and global... but same folks are posting the same bigotry on Facebook.
    - joe_the_user 8y ago
      Indeed - but youtube allows itself to become a public forum for the propagation of this stuff and it's hard not to see that as worse.
      - creato 8y ago
        The problem seems to be limited to the mega-popular content, and it doesn't really seem that different from news website comments. For niche channels that match my interests (10k-1M views per video), the comments are actually generally fairly pleasant and sometimes interesting.
doomlaser 8y ago
The experience of watching a video on Facebook is not as smooth. Clicking the "full screen" button doesn't send you to full screen, but a bigger window that still has a social sidebar. That's annoying. They need to fix that philosophy, because it was their avoidance of manipulative end user tactics in the early stage that helped them win out over MySpace.
mistermann 8y ago
> The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB. Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects, considering Google's apparent complete lack of skills or motivation in UI usability, and discoverability/search of all things) clone of YouTube in way under a year. And, they have a massive engaged social network to go with it, something Google can't bring to the table (they tried and failed). It could take them a long time to assemble critical mass of videos, but unless YouTube forbid it in their TOS (which I doubt, considering many people are openly advertising their steemit channels) most producers would clone their content to FB very quickly, especially smaller ones who are pissed off at demonetization. FB's weak links in my estimation are the stubborn insistence to have everything under Facebook.com (rather than a sibling site), and the trust they've lost in the last year.
- ambicapter 8y ago
  > clone of YouTube in way under a year. Probably because some aspects of computer science/website engineering are not entirely nailed down and years of experience still count for something.
  - called_it 8y ago
    FB can't make a YT clone in under a year because "years of experience still count for something"? So a scenario where a YT clone is made quickly, yet years of experience still count for something, is not possible at all?
  - mistermann 8y ago
    Do you think I'm overestimating or underestimating?
- amelius 8y ago
  > FB's weak links in my estimation are the stubborn insistence to have everything under Facebook.com (rather than a sibling site), and the trust they've lost in the last year. They have WhatsApp and Instagram under different names.
throwawayqdhd 8y ago
I'm an amateur musician and YouTube is my first stop whenever I'm trying to learn a new technique in Ableton or find music in a specific genre

by cheeze 8y ago

joe_the_user 8y ago

It depends on how you measure things. Youtube is a higher-quality video content site. It has lots of experience serving this type of content. But as a social network, Youtube is gutter-quality, the worst of the worst. The kind of social network whose more disgruntled content providers are literally trying to murder the people running the site and whose comment section is infamous for being something like the most awful part of Internet.

mattnewton 8y ago
I feel like the reference to the San Bruno shooting is detracting from your point. There was one incident still under investigation, and your commment pluralized and generalized from that. I agree with the sentiment though, I remember during the 2016 election debates in the US, watching the YouTube live comments fill up with Unicode-art swasticas and depictions of people with turbans and bombs being shot at from behind a wall, and just incoherient expletives and slurs peppered in between.
- losteric 8y ago
  Youtube seems worse because the comments are public and global... but same folks are posting the same bigotry on Facebook.
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    Indeed - but youtube allows itself to become a public forum for the propagation of this stuff and it's hard not to see that as worse.
    - creato 8y ago
      The problem seems to be limited to the mega-popular content, and it doesn't really seem that different from news website comments. For niche channels that match my interests (10k-1M views per video), the comments are actually generally fairly pleasant and sometimes interesting.

doomlaser 8y ago

The experience of watching a video on Facebook is not as smooth. Clicking the "full screen" button doesn't send you to full screen, but a bigger window that still has a social sidebar. That's annoying. They need to fix that philosophy, because it was their avoidance of manipulative end user tactics in the early stage that helped them win out over MySpace.

mistermann 8y ago

> The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB. Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects, considering Google's apparent complete lack of skills or motivation in UI usability, and discoverability/search of all things) clone of YouTube in way under a year. And, they have a massive engaged social network to go with it, something Google can't bring to the table (they tried and failed). It could take them a long time to assemble critical mass of videos, but unless YouTube forbid it in their TOS (which I doubt, considering many people are openly advertising their steemit channels) most producers would clone their content to FB very quickly, especially smaller ones who are pissed off at demonetization. FB's weak links in my estimation are the stubborn insistence to have everything under Facebook.com (rather than a sibling site), and the trust they've lost in the last year.

ambicapter 8y ago
> clone of YouTube in way under a year. Probably because some aspects of computer science/website engineering are not entirely nailed down and years of experience still count for something.
- called_it 8y ago
  FB can't make a YT clone in under a year because "years of experience still count for something"? So a scenario where a YT clone is made quickly, yet years of experience still count for something, is not possible at all?
- mistermann 8y ago
  Do you think I'm overestimating or underestimating?
amelius 8y ago
> FB's weak links in my estimation are the stubborn insistence to have everything under Facebook.com (rather than a sibling site), and the trust they've lost in the last year. They have WhatsApp and Instagram under different names.

throwawayqdhd 8y ago

I'm an amateur musician and YouTube is my first stop whenever I'm trying to learn a new technique in Ableton or find music in a specific genre