[majormajor]

The problem with your analogy is that it is tied to a very small window in history.

Has liberalism and free speech only existed in the time span where there's been regulated common-carrier type "services"?

Lets roll back the clock to before AT&T. Was there free speech and liberalism? Was any printer required to print anyone's manuscript? Was any newspaper required to be open to all opinions? Was any private person or organization required to spread those opinions across the world?

Historically, Facebook is much more like an open-to-the-masses publisher/distributor than you claim, with the difference resting more in economics (cost of publishing) than anything else. But that difference is hugely significant in practical terms - an unrestricted Facebook doesn't have much historical analog at all, hence the debate.

[SimbaOnSteroids]

I agree that it doesn't have much a historical precedent and its important to have this debate, I'm not sure where I fall on it myself if I'm being honest, but facebook does have historical precedent in its size, in the past we've busted up corporations that have grown to this size into smaller individual entities but idk how you'd do that with fb, you could spin off instagram or maybe spin off its video hosting services but this all gets really tricky really fast.