> Those who have been disallowed to associate with Facebook remain free to associate with other very similar platforms.
Facebook has been abusing it's massive size to block access to competitors using their Facebook Zero program : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Zero
From the page :
> In 2015, researchers evaluating how Facebook Zero shapes information and communication technology use in the developing world found that 11% of Indonesians who said they used Facebook also said they did not use the Internet. 65% of Nigerians, 61% of Indonesians, and 58% of Indians agree with the statement that "Facebook is the Internet".
Yeah I think that's awful that they do that. I was specifically talking about in the US, where it is easy to use a competitor. (The comment I replied to was also talking specifically about the US: "Free speech in America...")
Facebook has pulled similar tactics in the US also : https://www.wired.com/2010/11/google-facebook-data/
As a private commercial enterprise, Facebook itself is, for the people who own it, much like my home; they are free to set whatever policy they like regarding what goes on there, as long as they aren't discriminating against certain specifically protected classes of people. It's shortly tricky, it's not unreasonable to argue that a platform the size of Facebook should be treated more like a public space than a private one. But I personally think the bar for overriding freedom of association should be extremely high, and I don't think Facebook is over it. Those who have been disallowed to associate with Facebook remain free to associate with other very similar platforms.