Facebook however is has near-monopoly status in social networks.

FB would probably rather regulate themselves than be deemed "a public good" or "necessity" and have someone else do the regulating.

Agreed. Unless Facebook can provide evidence that a person is misusing/abusing the service, I feel it's entirely reasonable for a person to _expect_ access given how prevalent it is.

Maybe they should even have an external arbitration for such situations (I don't think it's at the level of the courts _yet_).

> _expect_ access given how prevalent it is.

> Maybe they should even have an external arbitration for such situations (I don't think it's at the level of the courts _yet_).

That expectation would be a false one. It seems like a reasonable expectation but nonetheless the user is powerless if FB decides their social network is better off without you. Why on earth would they allow an external arbitrator to meddle with their property? Why give up any of that power and control?

The only reason FB needs to be reasonable is out of fear of emerging competition if you boot enough people w/o cause.

In many countries, and in many social circles, Facebook can be thought of as a relatively integral part of society. In the same way that internet access has been ruled a basic human right, I think in certain circles, Facebook is getting close enough that they can't hide behind "we don't want you" anymore, and need to acknowledge the fact that they are more like a public utility.

There is a significant difference between 'thought of' and 'are'. In reality fb is not essential to anyone's life, merely by the fact that you need a computing device connected to the internet to access it. If you have internet access you have other means to communicate with people that are not reliant on fb. There is no way in the near term that fb will be governed as a utility, and I believe doing so is more harmful than not because that will only force fb to exist in the future with government protection vs letting the market determine if a new/better/different social network can arise.

> In reality fb is not essential to anyone's life,

My past employers have in the past rejected candidates due to a FB profile (i.e., candidate had dangerous-looking pics in his/her public image).

Wouldn't you say FB as a cause for getting rejected for a job impacts one's life, non?

Of course the employer never said a thing about candidate's FB profile, just "declined to proceed".

FB can definitely have an effect on your life, but it is not essential to your life. Not an essential utility. You can be turned down for a job due to an infinite number of reasons not directly related to the work itself. I do not see how this means it should or should not be governed or self-regulated though?

No, I stated government(s) considering regulation is a reasonable fear as well.

Your vision of corporate property rights being inalienable is not based on evidence.