The ones afforded to us by our libertarian utopia obviously. How could anyone could possibly consider lobbying to take away Facebook's rights as a person to do as it pleases?
People who work there are, but that's irrelevant. The right of freedom of press isn't based on the press themselves being human. The people who live in society have a right to access information that is violated through government censorship of media outlets.
There is free competition between social networking sites, while governments are definitionally regional monopolies.
Facebook can publish what they wish to publish, and not publish what they fundamentally disagree with. They are a private entity. That is pro-freedom, not anti-.
I'm not sure it is accurate to describe a situation where two companies have a couple billion users between them and the rest don't come close as "free competition". Facebook and Twitter compete, sort of, between themselves. Does anyone really compete with them?
Sure. Off the top of my head, linkedin, google plus, whatsapp, instagram, wechat, vkontakte, and yikyak. I can keep going all day. Just because they are winning in the largest markets doesn't mean they have no competition. In contrast, I can't just decide "yeah I'd rather not be subject to US law, I'm going to declare myself a citizen of Petoria", and it's just that nobody WANTS to.
I feel it incumbent upon me here to mention that two of the companies in your list belong to one of those here under discussion. Something perhaps you've overlooked.
I didn't overlook it, it's irrelevant in this context. The Surface Pro and the surface book are both made by Microsoft, they are still competing products that consumers have to choose between.
There's the rub. It can be hard to tell whether theory doesn't have any bearing on reality at the moment due to circumstance, or whether the theory is inherently flawed.
