However. I see people arguing frequently that Facebook is the new de-facto public square. I disagree with this position, but assuming for a moment it's true, this is the thing that shouldn't be allowed. In my mind it is akin to a shopping mall that has grown so large that it has taken over the entire country, and if you're a citizen of the country you have to follow the rules of the shopping mall which include not being allowed to wear T-shirts with political slogans (or worse, only certain political slogans). If I lived in that shopping mall nation, I wouldn't be dithering about what t-shirts were allowed or disallowed; I'd be arguing for the destruction of the entire shopping mall.
If they cannot manage unmoderated posting without hurting a lot of people, why should they be allowed to run a business based on unmoderated posting?
Would you say it is a catch-22 for a factory if a government ordered them to stop production or stop polluting nearby waterways with their toxic runoff? Perhaps for the factory, but the nearby communities would say it's a clear-cut case.
Your telecom also uses tax money to fund its infrastructure deployments, and it is regulated as more than an ordinary private company.
This is nonsense. They are trying to moderate content and they're being told that it's not permitted. It's qualitatively akin to requiring the New York Times to publish all letters to the editor. Or more specific to the posted article, require that the NYT write a personalized response for each letter that they don't publish and give the letter's author an opportunity to edit it for content.