Your idea of Facebook's obligation seems to be pretty much just based on what the law prohibits. That's not really an interesting thing to talk about because everyone agrees on such a simple fact.

I weakly think Facebook is so powerful that when it bans people or breaks up groups, it's capable of doing more harm than most other internet services and therefore it could be more morally wrong. If your Facebook group is turned off, what other platform can you move every member to? How can you even contact them to organize the migration? If you're personally kicked off, how can you persuade all other members of your groups to migrate to another platform just so you can join them again? I attend a real-life class and it comes with a Facebook group for students to keep in touch and share materials. If I was banned from Facebook, I'd miss out on part of this unrelated class. Since everyone assumes you can use Facebook, if you can't, then you're disadvantaged. In contrast, nobody assumes you can post to HN, so being banned from here is qualitatively different, in my opinion.

My idea of Facebook's obligation is not based on what the law prohibits but the law, hopefully, follows basic human moral tenets. If they overlap, it's not by accident.

If your Facebook group turns off, there are hundreds of other platforms you can move to. If you failed to backup your contacts, how is that the fault of Facebook? If you can't convince people to migrate, why is that their problem? If your school relies on Facebook, they shouldn't do that -- complain to them, not Facebook. And not everyone assumes you can (or want) to use Facebook.

It sounds like you want Facebook to take responsibility for things that are your own personal responsibility simply because, today, they're popular. It's not because they're the only choice but because, in some circles, they're the favored choice. Pretty significant difference.

What if your group meets at McDonald's and you got banned? You forgot to get their contact info. They don't want to meet at Starbucks instead. And your school hosts a study session at McDonalds. What is McDonald's responsibility for your misfortune?

Facebook is not the whole Internet. I have a Facebook account but generally I go months without even logging in. It's not essential. You're not forced to use it. If something you want to do requires it, it's your choice to do that or not. I've literally put my money where my mouth and decided not to upgrade to an Oculus Quest 2 because of the Facebook integration.

Personal safety requirements, such as compulsory seat belt wearing in cars.

Scammers are breaking the law by tricking people to give up their money even though the victims could just refuse to give money to whoever asks for it if they didn't want to get scammed.

Tenancy and employment law, at least in my country, doesn't allow people to contract out of certain rights. That's because some poor sucker would end up shooting himself in the foot by accepting a raw deal out of desperation.

Some companies like utilities are required to not arbitrarily ban customers, even though they're not the only choice - you can still install solar panels if you don't like the power company but it's nowhere near as convenient.

Consumer protection laws.

Restrictions on gambling.

Anti-spam laws. Email is not the only option but it has market dominance and network effects meaning normal life is harder without it.

McDonald's isn't like this because it has nowhere near the market dominance or network effects that Facebook does. It would still be a problem but a smaller one which I think doesn't outweigh the rights of the owner to ban whoever he wants or responsibility of customers to organize their groups better.

My question for you, is what do you believe should the be the rules here? I'm not against consumer protections -- if you want to compose a user bill of rights that applies to all companies online and off I might be for that depending on what you really want.

I'm not sure what regulation would be, but something that protects people against surprise and troublesome problems. Ideally, I feel it should be done by enabling greater competition, perhaps with a requirement for portable user identities, friends lists and reputations or interoperability between networks. Then they would have competitive pressure to treat their users well and the government wouldn't need to micro-regulate little details.

Not for all companies online. Just those that are in a powerful enough position to cause bigger problems, otherwise it would be disproportionately burdensome on small players or even hobbyists. That's similar to how existing regulations don't apply to everyone. Eg. Home owner-occupiers can do DIY work on their own house that normal requires a licensed tradesman, kids can sell lemonade without such strict hygiene rules as a cafe, individuals can sell 2nd hand goods without providing the same consumer protections as a 2nd hand dealer, etc.

The fact that you want equal treatment for all companies, as well as other things you've said, suggests you're more of an idealist than a pragmatist. I used to be like that but then realized the real world is too complicated for simple one-size-fits-all solutions to be the best. It turns out the free market doesn't actually lead to good outcomes for people unless its natural bad tendencies (eg. monopolies, predatory sales, negative externalities, etc.) are kept under control but at the same time, too much control stifles small business and innovation so it requires ongoing active management to function well.

That's not necessary fair because everyone else is calling for change here.

> Ideally, I feel it should be done by enabling greater competition, perhaps with a requirement for portable user identities, friends lists and reputations or interoperability between networks.

Except that you're just spreading your private information even further. At least if I post my private information to Facebook, it's on Facebook. I'm not worried that, as a feature, my friends are porting my information to other platforms.

> Then they would have competitive pressure to treat their users well and the government wouldn't need to micro-regulate little details.

I agree that competition would be better. In fact, I'd say that Facebook should have been prevented from buying Instragam, Whatapp, etc. But competitive pressure alone does not necessary require companies to treat users better. Facebook would still be the same with competition from these other companies.

> Just those that are in a powerful enough position to cause bigger problems, otherwise it would be disproportionately burdensome on small players or even hobbyists.

That's hard to judge. Just look at Whatapps -- they grew to millions of users with a team of less than dozen people. Are they a small player or a big player? You might end up with a lot of social networks right on the line of being big to avoid additional regulation.

Facebook, for it's part, has been very pro-regulation as they're big enough and profitable enough. This will further make it harder for smaller players to compete even if you limit the restrictions to large players.

> The fact that you want equal treatment for all companies, as well as other things you've said, suggests you're more of an idealist than a pragmatist.

No. But I think you can't have rules for "Facebook" because in 10 years the problem is going to be some other company in some other situation. And you have to be very careful of regulatory capture.