Platform Comparison: YouTube and Facebook
The following are comparisons of the discourse encouraged and enabled by YouTube and Facebook, respectively, based on their differences in structure and function. Refer back to the Platform Comparison Chart to see a basic outline of these differences in structure and function.
Primary Content
Due to YouTube’s focus on video as a medium, Facebook accommodates a greater variety of content types, though Facebook’s options for video are less robust, with YouTube providing options like in-video annotations and playlists. Unlike YouTube, Facebook auto-plays videos (without audio) by default. In that respect, Facebook is more adamant about forcing upon its users what it thinks they want to see. Considering the structure of each site as a whole, however, it can be debated which platform is more guilty of controlling what the user sees rather than allowing the user to choose themself. Text descriptions on YouTube videos being placed below the videos make it easier for viewers to ignore the descriptions, whereas text descriptions being placed above non-text Facebook posts make the text descriptions more noticeable. This difference of placement makes it easier for viewers to ignore part of what a YouTube content creator has to say.
Content Rating System
Both YouTube and Facebook made a shift at some point in time in what their content rating systems look like. YouTube, in shifting from a 1-to-5-star system to a like or dislike system, introduced an outlet for a more explicitly vile at-a-glance response, as rating zero stars was never possible. Facebook, in introducing the love, haha, wow, sad, and angry buttons, do not do the same thing explicitly. But similar to YouTube’s old low-rating options, the new buttons on Facebook have the potential to convey at-a-glance negativity. The angry button, for example, can express validation or invalidation depending on the tone of the post it’s applied to. Using some of these buttons can potentially also result in poor communication, at least on the level of the at-a-glance communication these buttons provide. Even then, using these buttons on Facebook will always display who has used them on a particular post as well as notifying the original poster, whereas YouTube does not divulge who has liked or disliked, allowing those who dislike YouTube videos to hide behind that wall of anonymity.
Sharing Options
Sharing on YouTube is built around sharing to a great number of other platforms--including Facebook--whereas sharing on Facebook is built around reproducing on Facebook content that already exists elsewhere, even elsewhere on Facebook. These differences result from the different purposes of each platform. Neither platform exists in a bubble. Discourse and interactions from one platform can reach into and overlap with interactions in other spaces.
Comments and Replies
Both platforms creates a new comments section for each new post, including the option for comments to reply the other comments. YouTube content and comments are necessarily different formats whereas Facebook posts and comments may be any of the same formats of content. This creates a greater cognitive gap between the primary content and the comments sections on YouTube, which may contribute to the notoriety of YouTube comments sections for abuse and vitriol. Additionally, YouTube’s decision to do away with video responses eliminated YouTube’s only built-in option to respond to content with the same format of content. Facebook posts and comments, on the other hand, work around only the inherent differences in psychology between posting and commenting.
Comment/Reply Rating System
YouTube users can like or dislike comments while Facebook users can only like comments. As with the rating systems for the primary content, the dislike comment allows for at-a-glance negativity on YouTube comments but not on Facebook comments. The dislike button here potentially contributes to the potential for abuse and vitriol in YouTube comments sections where we don’t find the same thing to the same degree in Facebook comments sections. As with liking and similar options on posts, YouTube gives anonymity to those who like or dislike comments while liking comments on Facebook is affected by the awareness of the visibility of the like.
Reporting of Posts
Both platforms hide this option under a drop-down menu, likely to discourage abuse of the reporting option. This drop-down menu on Facebook more greatly discourages the use of the report button, making multiple milder alternatives to reporting the post more prominent with larger, more elaborate icons towards the top of the list. As such, at least on a post-by-post basis, YouTube makes the reporting system at least slightly easier to abuse.
Reporting of Comments
Again, both platforms make the report option slightly hidden, Facebook providing a drop-down menu while YouTube hides the option behind an “X.” On this level, Facebook provides a more immediately visible option for letting the system know a particular comment is a problem. Past each of these buttons, however, YouTube provides only the option to report while Facebook provides other options, as the “X” only hides the comment and does not report it.
Following System
Following other users through YouTube’s subscription system goes only one way. The same is true of a user liking a page on Facebook. Between individual people on Facebook, the primary method of following--becoming “friends”--must be mutually agreed upon. The friend system reduces the distance of the relationship between any two users interacting on Facebook in many instances. On YouTube, by contrast, the creator-viewer relationship allows for a greater potential for abuse and vitriol.
Private Messaging System
YouTube’s private messaging system more closely resembles email while Facebook’s private messaging system more closely resembles text messaging. Private correspondence over YouTube therefore facilitates somewhat more formal exchange while Facebook chat facilitates more casual conversation. Facebook does more to emphasize the existence of its private messaging system than YouTube does. As far as private correspondence facilitates conflict resolution, conflicts within the YouTube sphere more easily occupy the public space; these conflicts therefore run a greater risk of public spectacle.
Privacy Settings
Facebook provides more flexible privacy settings than YouTube as well as applying privacy settings to a great variety of elements, whereas YouTube users can adjust privacy settings only for the videos they post. Of the two, YouTube advertises itself more as a platform for public discourse, whereas Facebook focuses more on a personal level, making the greater number of privacy options understandable.