> Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so
As in it would be much more difficult to replace Facebook as a communication platform for me than it would be for me to be banned from making phone calls ever again.
So facebook is more in the category of "can not replace" than being able to make phone calls.
Again, is that because you literally don't have the physical option of communicating by other ways, or because the people you want to communicate with are too lazy to use another option?
If I ask you to meet me at the bar and you're banned from the bar I've selected, it's not the bar's problem.
> literally don't have the physical option of communicating
I am saying that the problems of getting kicked off of a facebook are larger than that of getting kicked off of the communication utility that is phone calls.
And this is due to things like network effect.
And these issues and prevention that make it difficult for people to switch is larger on facebook than it is for phone calls.
So the "physical prevention" is larger for facebook than it is for phone calls.
I seriously doubt that. Network effect "just" makes a particular means of communication more favorable - it doesn't prevent the use of any of the options.
Not being able to use the phone cuts you of from a lot of services where no option exists.
Because the law doesn't protect convenience in these contexts.