The difference is that Facebook are pure middlemen: users themselves are the content creators, consumers, and reviewers. As reviewers they are unpaid, and as creators they often pay to publish their work.
The only difference I can see is that the YouTube/Facebook reviewer title is a lot easier to come by. I thought it more akin to Amazon Vine, but at least then you get to keep the things you test!
I don't think people would be upset if the industry operated at a higher profit margin. What is upsetting is that the industry has a strangle-hold on the market. If you want thrive in academia, you need to publish in top journals. This gives the top journals immense leverage over researchers. In effect, academics pay the journals to publish, and the Universities later turn around and pay a second time to have access to those same journals.
On top of the mortality rate, unlike a publisher or a journal, a dead tech giant leaves behind nothing that will still be valuable decades later: the technology is long-since obsolete, the brand irrelevant, and what intellectual property do they have? Their patents expire within 20 years while the publishers and journals' copyright on anything written since the 1930s will last what might as well be forever.