[drtz]

> Having an account on a company's platform is a privilege, not a right.

Businesses can lose a lot traffic by not being present on Facebook and Instagram, so being unjustifiably banned is doing measurable financial harm in many cases.

Even as an individual it can be a huge pain to not have Facebook. The local individual sales market (e.g. classified ads) is dominated by Facebook Marketplace now, for example, and not having access to that market makes it difficult to sell things.

Meta has a responsibility to the community because of their position as the de facto platform for many activities. They've even intentionally positioned themselves to dominate. Having laws requiring them to act responsibly is totally justifiable.

[skeledrew]

It's not Meta's - or any other company's - responsibility to care about the impact on users having or not having access to their platform, beyond how it affects them financially. What you're saying is that, because they're a huge company, they MUST - be forced to - allow access to anyone who might be somehow "disadvantaged" by not having access to their platform. I'd say that's ludicrous. The only responsibility Meta has is to the interests of its shareholders, which is primarily to grow their investment.

[skeledrew]

Regulatory laws can always be made of course, but it's unrealistic to expect that Meta, or any other company, will do any more than is required to ensure they're turning a profit.