My bad for being unclear, I know it's not literal survival, I was responding to the implication: because Facebook is needed for some kind of "survival", it foll

My bad for being unclear, I know it's not literal survival, I was responding to the implication: because Facebook is needed for some kind of "survival", it follows that Facebook is a utility that cannot be controlled by a company. That may be true for actual survival of actual people, but you're not talking about that. Guaranteed utilities/things in most countries are classified as such because they are necessary for literal human survival in modern society - electricity, water, food stamps, shelter - but you use the word "survive" which suggests actual survival while disclaiming the meaning by putting quotes around it and saying it's just a figure of speech. Facebook is not even close to a utility, it may only seem so if "survive" is re-defined to mean something totally different than what we use when we talk about a public utility. I appreciate your story but open source projects don't inherently deserve to survive. Businesses don't inherently deserve to survive. More importantly, the fact that Facebook can and has saved lives doesn't make it necessary for survival either. I'm sure a Taylor Swift song has brought someone back from the brink of suicide and indirectly saved lives by some definition, but it would be absurd to consider Taylor Swift songs to be a public utility necessary for survival.