100k followers is a curiously high threshold to be labeled as a public figure. I'd wager many people who are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages would not be able to hit that threshold even on Twitter.
(a) That there be some recognizable claim of notability --- this is an extremely low bar.
(b) That the notability claim, and any other material in the article, be backed entirely by reliable secondary sources.
(c) That after the article is stripped down to facts that can be verified in reliable secondary sources, there's still an encyclopedia article's worth of content left. This, too, is a very low bar.
Where pages tend to run afoul of WP's notability requirement is item (b).
But it's easy to see --- and to provide examples of --- people that with no public influence at all still having a Wikipedia page.
(Although I'd disagree with your implication that having a wikipedia page should constitute proof of the publics' interest in someone's life, and all the consequences being a "public figure" entails in some jurisdictions)
Notwithstanding the fact that it's Social Network, Inc's platform (and thus property) and you have no free speech rights on someone else's platform. Your right to free speech means the government cannot unduly curtail your speech.