That’s without even talking about stuff like being kicked off app stores, AWS, other hosting, or even their domain name.
There's absolutely no right for you or anyone else to have a guaranteed audience, though plenty of politicians try to make it so by using taxpayer money to let you know they stole some money from one taxpayer and gave it to a larger voting bloc friendly to them.
So, yeah, it's a few days of work to build a twitter replacement, but if you want that audience, you have to put in the sweat to build it, not just jump up and down and demand that you have a right to one that someone else built.
You can be on a dozen social networks, or on none, and hitting enter and going somewhere on the internet takes (almost) the same time regardless of where you go,in other words Facebook is trivially replaceable the same way it replaced MySpace, regardless of how large it is. The question is whether Facebook exercises market power, not whether it is large, which is the exact same flawed argument that people use in regards to Google.
What actually has public character is the physical infrastructure of the net, maybe the ISP level, but not digital products, at least none I have seen yet.
You were probably downvoted because I've seen this question posed a thousand times by people who weren't asking in good faith attempts to learn new things.
Honestly, i don't care if big government want to influence their tech sector, issue fines and revoke license, it's the government prerogative. But it is a power you don't want to abuse (I'll personnally give a break to Modhi because i think it is the first time he does something like that, but i'm more into big gov than 99% of HN users i think)
The issue isn't Donald Trump being silenced, the issue is wannabe tinpot dictators like him trying to coerce private business into doing his bidding. That's the actual free speech issue if there is one. Nobody should be compelled to host anyone else's speech.
Social media sites are not 'de facto public squares' in any way. It's trivial technically to create an alternative site to the incumbents, that's why there's already like half a dozen alternatives spawning around Trump's political ecosystem. It's just that the content on those sites is so godawful within days of them going online that everyone runs for the hills who has a few brain-cells left.
It is so ridiculous to paint people like Trump, literal oligarchs, as victims of private business lol.