If you are down-voting this, you should probably take a hard look at your thought processes.
What are some $200B+, publicly-traded companies that the government has "turned off"?
Facebook has lots of qualities that make it impossible to kill on a whim:
- Peter Thiel is influential in the current admin and also a FB investor
- Many companies are spending millions a day on Facebook ads and may have pre-paid
- Facebook login is a primary authentication scheme for many websites/apps (like Tinder)
- Billions of irreplaceable photos are warehoused in Facebook
You and GP are making the bolder claim by far, so the burden is on you to provide evidence.
Does the break-up of Bell count?
Facebook can't go underground because most of their customers are businesses that need govt-sanctioned legitimacy and could be forced to stop buying ads from them (not the mention the challenges of reassembling their personnel/infra outside US control).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2015/11/04/how-brewe...
Forget $200b. What are some legitimate $1b+ companies that the government has turned off like a switch? Essentially it has never happened before in US history, because it's not a power that the government actually possesses.
If your whole business consists of running a massive medicare fraud, or you're a ponzi scheme shell with no assets, then sure the government might raid you and you instantly become insolvent and non-operational. Cases of that sort are about the only time such a switch is thrown (and even then, there is a well defined legal process involved).
1. Current admin declares "fake news" to be a national emergency. Demands Facebook turn over all keys to all databases. Democrats in Congress cry foul, Republicans are "concerned," until Facebook doesn't turn over the keys. Justice system gets involved, and then the debate turns from "extraordinary government overreach into free speech and privacy" into one about how a corporate is spitting in the face of American sovereignty and security, and "activist" judges, etc. Probable outcome: nothing happens because a Federal Judge in Hawaii says no. Possible Outcome: Facebook gets scared and hands over their data, tanking trust and usage.
2. Current admin orders a massive investigation into Facebook ties with Russia, throws around accusations like "spycraft" and "treason." As servers and documents are seized, Twitter et al step up recruitment and snipe staff terrified of FBI agents constantly roaming around. Possible outcomes: Facebook quality drops significantly as they lose valuable staff; Facebook service gets disrupted and usage plummits as servers get taken at random, or entirely; Facebook gets a big, fat, "This Website has been serving Illegal Content" notices with the US seal on it.
3. Current admin uses social media to strongly promote the idea that Facebook is working against American interests. Pushes on Silicon Valley location, "presidential harassment," censorship of conservatives, etc. Starts a smear war. Facebook afraid to push back and thus "confirm" propaganda. Possible outcomes: Usage drops from a boycott (oh well?); radicalized militia/crazies start bombing / shooting up Facebook offices, Facebook forced to shut down US operations out of security concerns / staff flee en masse out of fear.
I'm not claiming any of these have even more than a 20% chance of happening, it's just fun for me to explore the possibilities.
Why do we need to be in a dictatorship for the government to be able to arbitrarily seize assets? Civil forfeiture is real. Executive order 6102 is real. The government has the tools at their disposal to outlaw anything that is not explicitly protected in the Constitution (and even that too can be amended through the operation of law).