More LOLbertarian pap.
I am not required to use Facebook in any way - either by the .gov or anyone else. I'm not being oppressed if FB says I can't use their platform. There are competing mediums. Oddly enough, I've seen FB censor things that were directly posted from Instagram - another one of their companies. If the .gov was trying to oppress me or anyone else by farming it out - participation would be compulsory. It's not.
Oh, yes, hte old, "build your own facebook/domain name service/internet backbone" argument. Where have you been the last 10 years?
Facebook, Twitter, et al ARE the public square. Barring its use is akin to barring folk the use of the banking system, the roadways, and the postal service.
There need be no compulsion any more thna a school of fish needs compulsion. Govt/Facebook/BigCorp are one and hte same with the same interests.
They only sell what people WILLINGLY give them and you do so whenever you click "I agree" on the T&C. You're signing up for it. You can't get in line for the pool, jump in and then bitch when you get wet.
Read up on "contracts of adhesion." Back when we used to have rule of law, contracts of adhesion were regularly voided and rled unenforceable. But, like antitrust law, Faceborgians, congresscritters and others inthe ruling class have conveniently let the concept of contract of adhesion die.
Do I like FB/Insta etc? Nope but I also am not going to scream about my 1st amendment rights when I violate the T&C. OP didn't get blocked because of his POV, he likely got blocked for threats of violence - like he's made here. There's a difference with distinction there.
[david_attenborough_voice]"And here we see the libertarian in its natural habitat, the sidelines, engaging in its prefered behavior of picking nits while one of its felows is being gutted by ruling class predators.[/david_attenborough_voice]