flickr is a photo sharing site, that also supports video. Facebook is a social network that supports video. Both are inherently made up of many-to-many personal relations without much direct focus. Neither of those, though, allows you to create a video site dedicated solely to a community of you-to-many. So, first, the ability to upload a video and share it with your friends is not equivalent to running your own video site. The two have different value propositions to you, the user.

Secondly, there is a business/blog play that you overlooked. There is a reason TechCrunch didn't build Elevator pitches as a Facebook Group, or on flickr, and it's the same reason we (I'm one of the founders of JamLegend) didn't waste our time using a social network as a video site. The point of the mockup video sites (for Techcrunch Elevator Pitches, VentureBeat, and Mashable), is to show that the video services of all of those businesses could have been built on Fliggo, quickly and easily, and at what I presume to be a reduced cost. The hack solution is wordpress + YouTube, but that's not very elegant, lacks a certain amount of professionalism, and can be difficult to monetize effectively. So, to have a more professional solution before Fliggo, you had to develop your video site in-house, outsource/contract/etc, or use something like Brightcove. Now that there is Fliggo, the process became as easy as point-and-click, while still allowing a full array of customization (as we took full advantage of).