How does James Louderback's analysis of Facebook video compare to YouTube?

James Louderback sees Facebook as desperate to own video but lacking a real, creator-friendly strategy compared with YouTube.

From that analysis of Facebook video:

1. Facebook delivers strong views, but there is no clear, consistent way for partners to make money, unlike YouTube’s established ad and partner ecosystem
2. Facebook has a history of shifting priorities (he cites Zynga) which makes it a risky foundation for creators or news orgs to “go all in” on
3. Its approach feels like a blunt “video good” tactic rather than a transparent long-term plan creators can evaluate

YouTube, by contrast, might be imperfect, but it offers:

1. Predictable monetization and partner programs
2. A clearer, long-term commitment to professional and creator video

So in that analysis, YouTube is the stable, strategic video platform; Facebook is powerful but erratic and opaque.

Is there a specific angle you are most interested in—money, distribution, or creator control?