Even Ma Bell, in its most powerful and abusive days as a monopolist, would never have dreamed of enacting such hostility towards its users.
It's worth asking, for how long will people tolerate an increasingly unreliable communications infrastructure?
I don’t think they really care about secret conversation, though. I think they want to recruit new followers. Every new recruit reaffirms that they’re “correct” in their thinking and solidifies the sense of belonging.
The comparison to 'Ma Bell' is irrelevant.
'Verizon or AT&T' - the actual modern incarnations of 'Ma Bell' are not intervening here, nor will they.
If you want to make up stories about people raping children in basements, then yo can do that on your own website.
" for how long will people tolerate an increasingly unreliable communications infrastructure?"
This question is upside down.
The real question is 'How long will most people tolerate a social network full of stupidity, make up stuff, fake news, and other garbage'?
QAnon is not the reason people use FB, it's the reason they leave.
De-facto it is both a 'communications infrastructure' and a 'public square' - due to the simple fact that it is used as such by hundreds of millions of people.
The fact that they get away with pretending that they aren't is unfortunate. The fact that so many people are eager to defend this is sad, to say the least.
Facebook has always had policies concerning content, that was never up for debate.
There's really little to argue about here.
If you want to talk about Lizards in control of the White House, you can make your own web site.
Facebook isn’t necessary infrastructure for communication. It’s an ad platform.
Anyone using it accepted an arrangement where Facebook is under no obligation to permit them to continue to use Facebooks property (Facebooks servers).
You should really climb out of the web and read up on the laws that you tacitly give control over you by your ignorance of how they work.
The historical root of power in America is owning real property. The masses seem happy to sign theirs over to employers and banks.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
In short: (C)(1) - publishers are not speakers (C)(2) - publishers can remove content at their discretion.
How did the law come to be understood to do the exact opposite of what it does? There is also no requirement for them to be transparent or fair.