Good because I'm not a lawyer, but what I said is still true:
Now we just need to convince folks that Facebook is a town, not say... a digital publication. Then it can be nationalized as was originally suggested. Although maybe the government should try using eminent domain before outright nationalization?
Still, the whole idea seems like a stretch and a crazy one at that.
The only publishing-like activity social media sites partake in are the curated news feeds. It's not clear that the service hosting accounts and people's communications as a utility has to be the same as the one providing curated feeds. That's one way to approach this anyway.
I'm speaking to social media in general. Is it not undeniable that if there's a public outcry on social media, that politicians pay attention? Does it not then follow that access to social media is fairly important to having a voice in our politics? Is it not also true that something like 50% of Americans get their news form Facebook? These are only surface level facts, there deeper issues like, for instance, ability to organize political campaigns for a cause without access to social media being severely hampered.
I don't know what your threshold for "essential", but access to these platforms sound pretty important to me, and I expect these trends will only increase.
"The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Cf. Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 982, 985, 987, note 8, 157 A.L.R. 1081. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation."
The argument here would be that Facebook is built and operated primarily as a benefit to the public (i.e. they draw income by being a benefit to the public), they are essentially a public function, and are subject to state regulation as such.
Facebook would remain privately-held, and could either remain open to the public and subject to constitutional scrutiny, or they could close off and become some kind of a private club like Clubhouse.
I haven't thought through the ramifications of doing so, but I think it could be legally supported.
The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.