The author seems to think that Facebook has some obligation to let them use their platform.
Facebook employees seem to think that people have to uphold their illusion that the company has any interest in "making the world a better place" or "just connecting the world" (or whatever is the internal feel good company slogan of the day).
Nothing wrong with unveiling that this is not the case. Whether Facebook has the right to ban anyone or not doesn't really matter here.
The fact that you can't express your intent to facebook to do this and have them assist by doing it for you automatically you reveals their user-hostility in this area.
And then they would use smaller "social media" platforms as a legal defense, even if they don't compete on content or functionality.
So much I hear the classic "they're a private company they can do what they want," or "just build your own platform." But at every level, alternative platforms get kneecapped, whether it be from app stores, or hosts, or the big guys not letting you link to them. Some of this is in part to it attracting edgelords who were banned from the mainstream platforms and being unable to keep up with moderation from a sudden influx of them making it "their place."
I'm not a lawyer so I don't exactly know how this would work, but I think that someone is undoubtedly at a disadvantage to share their message depending on whether or not they have access to social media platforms. And the criteria for getting banned is only continuing. Look no further than YouTube's new vaccine guidelines, which have gotten plenty reasonable people (including doctors), who are just trying to ask question, banned without recourse.
The problem from my perspective is that people do not fully understand what free speech means. People conflate the issue by believing platforms like facebook or youtube are "public" spaces and subsequently assume they're entitled to constitutional rights.
I can invite you to my house, I can also kick you out. I don't have to give a reason for why I want you to leave. Maybe it's something you said, maybe I'm tired, maybe I want to leave. The reasoning doesn't matter, I have full control over my own private property which is what all these social media sites are.
If we take it one step further, you signed a legal binding contract acknowledging you have no rights. Where is the disconnect?
Also there are lots of rights you can't sign away in a normal contract.
Social media companies like Facebook and Youtube have every right to remove anyone they want from their property for nearly any reason just like you have the same right to remove people from your property coupled with assistance from the government (e.g. police, court system).
The only outlier in my mind for a company is the issue of discrimination. While the people that are currently being removed feel discriminated upon because they're all spewing the same nonsense, it doesn't actually meet the definition of discrimination (race, age, gender, etc...). I think it's pretty clear at this point that these companies don't want people spreading misinformation, hatred, or engaging in other various activities using their platform. If you do those things, you may get the boot which again, you agreed to.
It just makes no sense to me that people think that social media is going to become the bastion of free speech. It also makes me sad that people don't really understand what free speech is and what your rights protect you from.
Notice how this argument doesn't actually depend on rights, though I do have rights-based things to say. Whatever you think about rights, this kind of thing causes problems and can have negative effects on society.
There are lots of bad effects when fake-public spaces replace actually public spaces.
And your house is not a fake-public space. The analogy doesn't connect there.
Constitutional rights were all drafted up before we knew that anything like YouTube would exist. Private companies control the majority of information and influence elections now. At that point, it's a free speech issue.