1. Due to network effects, there's an argument that some types of online services are natural monopolies [0], and should be regulated the way we do for electricity, water, etc. There are reasonable arguments against such regulation (in any domain); but it's potentially within the purview of the state to set "rules of the road" for the market, which in this context could mean digital due process, algorithmic transparency, interoperability, etc.

2. While I don't disregard Barry Goldwater's argument against the Civil Rights Act [1], the fact is that right now we do actively interfere in the marketplace to mandate transactions not be constrained by "protected categories": race/gender/creed/etc. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to proactively extend this protection to include political alignments or even epistemic opinions.

(One of the things I find most curious about CRA, is that while most of its categories are "immutable characteristics", one's faith is more a matter of choice than genetics. If I claimed my religion was "I worship $POLITICAL_PARTY", would it then be protected? What is the scope of what defines a "faith"? In a neighboring FB banning instance [2], Lincoln Cannon even describes how his inciting post advocating decentralization derives from his Mormon beliefs.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1964/06/19/archives/text-of-goldwate...

[2] https://lincoln.metacannon.net/2021/01/facebook-disabled-my-...

How would you actually ensure that they aren't (for example) banning customers of a protected race or other class if they refuse to provide any information on why a user was banned? All you can do is act on faith if their policies are secret and their decisions are also secret.

This is less far-fetched than you might imagine. TikTok moderators were ordered to prevent disabled users from appearing in feeds [1], which in practice is blatant discrimination against a protected class - but you'd never know about it directly since even if you figured out you were hidden from feeds, why would they answer unless they were forced to?

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/2/20991843/tiktok-bytedance...

> What do you mean outlawed? Facebook.com is private commercial property, they can define rules and decide which customers they work with. The only thing they cannot do is restrict users by categories, protected by law.

It's pretty clear the GP wants to change the laws to make such actions by Facebook illegal. Facebook is private of course, they still have to follow the law. Are you saying you don't know specifically what the change in the laws would be (of course we can't expect the GP to have all the details worked out) or do you not understand the concept that we as a society can change the law to regulate Facebook's actions?

Facebook.com is not a simple private commercial property anymore. It obviously has other attributes which make it different from any other. It's too influential and too important for too many people.

So in other words, a company that does too well and is too successful at making a product popular should lose the same basic property rights and freedom of association every other person and organization is given under the constitution, as punishment for their success

To be fair, anti-trust laws are based on that principle. There's nothing inherently wrong (or illegal) with having a billion users, but a company that takes advantage of that power is a bad thing.

Perhaps. Id this gives them too much power over too many people. Facebook isn't something everyone uses just because it's fun. It's the standard way to communicate, the standard way to identify yourself and the major political medium for common people.

Fortnite is also important to a lot of people, that doesn't make it actually important.

Facebook acts as an identity provider similar to gmail. That is pretty different from Fortnite, losing your account could mean you lose access to tons of important sites.

I'd argue as a general rule that there are no important websites that require Facebook to access your account. Also, you can typically use an e-mail to recover access to an account that you used social media to authenticate with.

> I'd argue as a general rule that there are no important websites that require Facebook to access your account.

Many local governments, for example, use Facebook and no other mechanism nowadays.

I don't agree with this but that is reality. Until you change reality, you have to deal with it.

I'm in the Philippines, and the local electric co-op does not have its own domain, but a Facebook Page. You cannot find out who to contact without the information on this page. Essentially a public utility prefers to use Facebook than to spend time and money developing their own site.

Now, this is bad for many reasons, but the point is in many parts of the developed world, people do think of Facebook as the internet.

This makes me think Facebook and alike websites should be legally forced to randomly blackout particular countries for months once a year so people would learn to avoid relying on them.

when Facebook can highlight lies about a candidate and allow them to perpetuate without issue... and then suppress lies about another candidate with extreme prejudice...

Saying that a company that can literally affect global elections based on whims of political people at the top... isn't important?

the scope of Facebook in no way shape or form compares to Fortnite... unless fortnight is enforcing rules for one group but not another and fortnite affects elections and the global conversation.

Strawman here: Let's say there was a large corporation that owned an airline. Can they not you on the airline because you are a spanish matador? Airlines leak into our tax system: we protect the air space, fund traffic control, etc. This is where I get pissed off. If you are this large you are no longer a "private commercial property".

Don't know why you're downvoted, your comment is definitely interesting.