Let me help. Why is this practice reasonable on the physical space? Because being physically in a place is usually the first step to commit any damage, to hara

Let me help. Why is this practice reasonable on the physical space? Because being physically in a place is usually the first step to commit any damage, to harass people, to steal things. Barring blacklisted people from a place is the easiest way to prevent some problems. (Disclaimer: I am not saying that this practice is acceptable, merely that it is why it is accepted). If someone threw a tantrum in your place or if someone was caught trying to steal stuff, preventing them from being physically present is much easier than having someone check their every action once they are in. And this tells us why the comparison with the online world does not hold directly. Accessing a website is not like accessing a place physically. And misbehavior is easier to spot online where any unauthorized access can easily trigger a warning. However, the current case breaks the metaphor of websites being like physical space: Facebook argues it instead provides a service that Power have abused (by breaking Facebook's EULA) and it then required that Power stopped this abuse. What is attacked there is basically a EULA violation after a cease and desist letter. It is far less about trespassing and accessing website than the author makes it sound like.