[minimaxir]

> Anyone with more than 100,000 followers on a social media platform is designated as a public figure – which denies them the full protections given to private individuals.

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.

[tptacek]

Pedantry: you can keep a Wikipedia page with virtually no followers or following of any kind. The criteria for Wikipedia pages is simply:

(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.

[matt4077]

It's a sufficient, not a necessary condition for being considered a public figure.

(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)

[maxerickson]

What is the downside of having a high threshold for removing protections?

[stale2002]

Well, that is because by adding protections to a person, you are removing free speech rights from someone else.

[delinka]

The right to free speech does not imply a right to be heard (read, viewed, etc), by groups or individuals. If you spout things onto Social Netowrk, Inc's platform from which Social Network, Inc has decided to protect me, a private individual, they have not infringed your right to freely spout those things.

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.

[maxerickson]

So how is this relevant to things that happen on the Facebook?