Not in any meaningful sense that I can understand. Seems hard to argue that all the people on HN who've plainly stated that they left Facebook can be considered dead or struggling to survive. That's not a sensible definition of survival. Also, Facebook cannot and does not prevent anyone from reaching its users. Facebook users often use other products and platforms as well.
I ran an open-source initiative for ten years, barely making headway.
Then I set up a Facebook group for it.
Within a few months, its reach had exploded worldwide, it became the de facto world standard, and a huge new team had taken it over.
It was not all Facebook, but the Facebook presence was a big part of it. It’s the most active hub for that effort by far.
Also, due to the nature of that particular effort, I guarantee that there are people (probably many) that are alive today, because of Facebook.
It’s entirely possible to hop in a sailboat, and get to Hawai’i, but most people would prefer flying there.
It can be said that Hawai’i requires air travel to “survive” (but I suspect that there are a number of native Hawai’ian folks that feel as if this ease of access has been anything but a blessing).
I appreciate your story but open source projects don't inherently deserve to survive. Businesses don't inherently deserve to survive.
More importantly, the fact that Facebook can and has saved lives doesn't make it necessary for survival either. I'm sure a Taylor Swift song has brought someone back from the brink of suicide and indirectly saved lives by some definition, but it would be absurd to consider Taylor Swift songs to be a public utility necessary for survival.
But, the project I worked on is definitely not something to be compared to a Taylor Swift song, and I understand that this comes from a position of unfamiliarity. That's fine, but I'm happy to elucidate, offline, if you wish.
It's the kind of thing that is best left relatively "uncredited," and is important only to a certain demographic; but within that demographic, it is very, very important.
That sort of puts it into the realm of a utility; like power or water.
The idea of a utility, is that it is deliberately allowed to become a monopoly, sometimes, with state enforcement. The flip side, is that it is now required to provide a lot of services.
For example, if some old folks can't pay their electric, in winter, the utility might be required to supply them with electricity anyway, and eat the cost, or claim it as a tax deduction.
That's the downside. The upside is...MONOPOLY, BABY! WOO-HOO! PAAAARTAAAY!
So there's a big carrot, as well as stick. People who own utilities tend to get pretty damn rich.
This all kinda breaks down, if the utility is already a monopoly, so the state assigning them monopoly status means nothing. No carrot; only stick. It also breaks down, if the utility manages to corrupt the regulators, thus eliminating the stick.
Facebook is already a monopoly. It doesn't need the state to give it anything; certainly not with a stick, attached. Thus, the "Standard Oil" remedy.
Apple isn't quite like Facebook, but it's getting there. The problem is that a lot of what gives its products value, is that iron-fisted control Apple has over their configuration. If that control is diluted, then it would also reduce the value of Apple products.