4 ms·

It sounds to me like part of the problem is that the people making popular videos don't share them on facebook themselves, which results in the modern internet

It sounds to me like part of the problem is that the people making popular videos don't share them on facebook themselves, which results in the modern internet native's primary reaction to media being unavailable in their preferred venue and at their preferred comfortability level: Piracy. Sure, you can fight back by appealing to the public about facebook's evility, or by spending lots of resources in legal action. Or you can roll with the punches and figure out the myriad ways in which even the currently broken facebook system can work for you.

Jare 11y ago
How would those videos monetize for the author when posted on Facebook? The article says Facebook's ad revenue sharing is in the works but not quite there yet .
- scott_s 11y ago
  Probably not directly at the moment, but they could do something similar to what the people who are ripping them off are doing: create a FB page for exposure, and hope that exposure turns into views on their YouTube channel.
  - bsder 11y ago
    But why should I go watch the video on YouTube when I just watched it on Facebook? Even better, the Facebook video doesn't have ads.
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      The classic pirate answer is that after you torrent an album to try it out, you go buy a copy to support the artist. So after you watch the Facebook video, you'd go watch it again on YouTube to support the creator.
      - bsder 11y ago
        And we all know how well that worked for the music industry.
      - makomk 11y ago
        That works quite well for music because you usually want to listen to it more than once - I actually started buying music again because of Grooveshark. It doesn't make sense for videos and I suspect you know that.
    - scott_s 11y ago
      You probably won't. But you may check out other videos, or just remember the name and look later. It's not a great solution, but if I had content on YouTube and depending on the advertising from it, I would probably do this.
- bemmu 11y ago
  Another push towards product placement / native ads? Here's SmarterEveryDay with this awesome tattoo video and folks, use the code SMARTTATTOO for 20% off your tattoos at this parlor, now on with the program :(
ucha 11y ago
The videos can be made available on FB if they're shared as embedded Youtube videos. However, as the article mentions, there are suspicions that FB might favour native videos over videos hosted on external platforms in the News Feed.
- namplaa 11y ago
  Afaik FB actually tells Page owners that they prefer native content.
  - GauntletWizard 11y ago
    Native content does not earn content creators ad revenue. It does, however, earn FB ad revenue.
Tyr42 11y ago
But the article talks about how sharing YouTube links is penalized by Facebook, and you have to re-upload it as a Facebook video for Facebook to really share it in news feeds. Then you don't get any money at all fore it, so that doesn't seem viable for people who treat it like a job.
snowwrestler 11y ago
Let's say a video maker did create a Facebook page, and loaded all their videos onto it. That does not solve the problem, because Facebook is not an open, search-based system the way YouTube is. Facebook users will only see it in their NewsFeed if it is posted by a page they are following, or engaged with by a friend. YouTube has a system to recognize copies of known videos, so they can prioritize the original video when they serve search results, or recommended videos. This allows them to soak up the demand for a particular video, and direct it at the appropriate copy (the one uploaded by the video's creator). Until Facebook has a similar system, multiple copies of a single video can exist within Facebook and potentially never cross paths, since propagation depends on the local shape of the social graph, and how EdgeRank moves content through it. That means that even if a video creator uploads their own video to Facebook, they can't soak up all the demand for it. As the guy in the article says, the only way for him to become aware of a copy is if it lands in the NewsFeed of one of his fans. Whereas on YouTube, anyone can search for any title, and Content ID also finds matches. edit: additions and clarity

Jare 11y ago

How would those videos monetize for the author when posted on Facebook? The article says Facebook's ad revenue sharing is in the works but not quite there yet .

scott_s 11y ago
Probably not directly at the moment, but they could do something similar to what the people who are ripping them off are doing: create a FB page for exposure, and hope that exposure turns into views on their YouTube channel.
- bsder 11y ago
  But why should I go watch the video on YouTube when I just watched it on Facebook? Even better, the Facebook video doesn't have ads.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    The classic pirate answer is that after you torrent an album to try it out, you go buy a copy to support the artist. So after you watch the Facebook video, you'd go watch it again on YouTube to support the creator.
    - bsder 11y ago
      And we all know how well that worked for the music industry.
    - makomk 11y ago
      That works quite well for music because you usually want to listen to it more than once - I actually started buying music again because of Grooveshark. It doesn't make sense for videos and I suspect you know that.
  - scott_s 11y ago
    You probably won't. But you may check out other videos, or just remember the name and look later. It's not a great solution, but if I had content on YouTube and depending on the advertising from it, I would probably do this.
bemmu 11y ago
Another push towards product placement / native ads? Here's SmarterEveryDay with this awesome tattoo video and folks, use the code SMARTTATTOO for 20% off your tattoos at this parlor, now on with the program :(

ucha 11y ago

The videos can be made available on FB if they're shared as embedded Youtube videos. However, as the article mentions, there are suspicions that FB might favour native videos over videos hosted on external platforms in the News Feed.

namplaa 11y ago
Afaik FB actually tells Page owners that they prefer native content.
- GauntletWizard 11y ago
  Native content does not earn content creators ad revenue. It does, however, earn FB ad revenue.

Tyr42 11y ago

But the article talks about how sharing YouTube links is penalized by Facebook, and you have to re-upload it as a Facebook video for Facebook to really share it in news feeds. Then you don't get any money at all fore it, so that doesn't seem viable for people who treat it like a job.

snowwrestler 11y ago

Let's say a video maker did create a Facebook page, and loaded all their videos onto it. That does not solve the problem, because Facebook is not an open, search-based system the way YouTube is. Facebook users will only see it in their NewsFeed if it is posted by a page they are following, or engaged with by a friend. YouTube has a system to recognize copies of known videos, so they can prioritize the original video when they serve search results, or recommended videos. This allows them to soak up the demand for a particular video, and direct it at the appropriate copy (the one uploaded by the video's creator). Until Facebook has a similar system, multiple copies of a single video can exist within Facebook and potentially never cross paths, since propagation depends on the local shape of the social graph, and how EdgeRank moves content through it. That means that even if a video creator uploads their own video to Facebook, they can't soak up all the demand for it. As the guy in the article says, the only way for him to become aware of a copy is if it lands in the NewsFeed of one of his fans. Whereas on YouTube, anyone can search for any title, and Content ID also finds matches. edit: additions and clarity