True, but all of these small-business/relatable analogies break down because fb is a monopoly. It would be unreasonable if a polite disagreement with one person excluded you from 90% of bars in your state/country.

It's more like getting kicked out of the most popular bar, where 90% of your friends go. Sure, there are other bars, but you want to go to the one with your friends.

I'd say it's more like getting kicked out of a library for being a republican and therefore not being allowed to ever enter any library in the country again.

How is facebook preventing you from using a different social network (another library)?

The reason I used the library analogy is that at least where I live, library's are only run by the state.

And literally the whole point of this conversation is that Facebook has a monopoly on locally targeted online marketing, they're not stopping you from advertising on Myspace, what's stopping you from advertising on Myspace is that it's pointless.

Sure, technically Facebook doesn't have a 100% perfect, totally clean monopoly with literally no competitors, but that doesn't mean that them owning a significant majority of the targeted local advertising market isn't a monopoly problem and shouldn't therefor be legislated against.

A better analogy would be a bar owner evicting someone who politely disagreed with them, while simultaneously allowing a fascist group to drink, telling punters who complain about them he just serves drinks and will serve them to anyone who he legally can do.

Unreasonable in the sense that even if it’s legal, ejecting someone who wasn’t causing problems is likely to strike many people as overbearing even if they share the owner’s politics. Facebook being arbitrary hurts them because everyone else has to wonder whether something they care about will be next.