@djones51 , I will try to unpack this as best as I can. Let's start by saying that this place, is, for the most part, not infrastructure so what I would apply to other entities, even Facebook, would not appear here.
If you're saying that the internet should be regulated by the FCC the same as the airspace is for broadcast TV then that's a different discussion and not one I would necessarily be against.
I am saying that we have allowed the line between "Private" entities and public utilities to blur too far. Many aspects of Facebook, especially the communications aspects, are an effective equivalent of a public utility. In the past, a telephone could not be refused by Ma Bell unless bills were not paid or the phone was used for illegal purposes. No one was threatening to burn down their offices because someone, someone did not like, was allowed to have a telephone.
I would put Banks, and credit cards / payment processing into that, i.e. Paypal. There is enough concentration into few enough companies, that I think a legal requirement to serve is essential if we want to preserve the concept of free speech. Ditto would be for ISPs and access to the Internet.
Today, say the wrong thing, upset the wrong 10%, 25%, etc. of the population and Credit Card companies will refuse to process your payments, etc. even though you are doing nothing illegal. ISPs may refuse you service, etc.
What is the point of having a legal right to criticize the government, etc. if private companies are able to eliminate your ability to have a voice. You can't even create your own platform unless you are exceedingly wealthy because again, Credit Cards won't process your payments, ISPs won't allow you access, etc. Very very dangerous precedent.
I see right to access laws as beneficial for these companies as well. One has to expect that while some of their banning is partisan politics, a lot of it is just knee jerk reactions because it is easier to ban one person, then it is to stand up to the mobs insisting that person is cancelled. If these companies are not legally able to cancel that person, except for illegal activity, then those companies don't have to worry about the outraged mobs.
To wit, YOU can boycott Hobby Lobby all you want, same as I can avoid ULINE if at all possible (I really wish they had some effective competition).
However, what I don't think is acceptable, is that you and an outraged mob, lobby Hobby Lobby's bank, which I consider an essential service, effectively infrastructure, such that the bank feels pressured to drop them as a client. I would likely extend that to Facebook as it has become ubiquitous, and perhaps even Youtube. You-tube does not like your politics and they demonetize your videos (but happily capitalize on the mindshare of the viewers you bring to their platform).
These are private entities, BUT they rely heavily on public infrastructure to survive, including physical space, airwaves, etc. Private company, you don't want to allow XXX to use your network, that's okay, we will take usage of 1.5-1.75GHz away from you, I hope it was not important. Mr. Bank, you don't want to serve this customer? No problem. Now you must have 100% assets to match your lending because you don't get to print money from the central bank any more. Youtube, you don't want to allow certain people? No problem, your data can longer be carried on any infrastructure that makes use of public land.
It is all about deciding what type of society you want to live in.