Insanely wrong.
Other than some securities laws publicly and privately held corporations are treated the same under the law.
You seem to be confused by the term publicly held. It doesn't mean that the corporation is owned by the general public - it isn't - it just means some portion of the equity is available for sale to the general public.
There are publicly owned enterprises - libraries, some universities, statutory corporations in many states and municipalities, etc. - which are owned by all citizens because they're funded by taxes, but that's not what we're talking about.
A publicly owned enterprise has to accommodate everyone because everyone is an owner.
With a few exceptions, which I'll get to, a publicly held company only has to accommodate it's shareholders to the extent that they get a vote.
There are public accommodation laws that say enterprises which are generally open to the public can't discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin", and in some states there are LGBT protections, but these laws apply equally to public and private companies (there are exemptions for private clubs and religious exemptions), so the ownership structure of FR or FB doesn't enter into it.
More to the point, no law prohibits discrimination on the basis of political viewpoint.
As long as the private parties abstain from disrupting, interfering with other private rooms such as walking in and telling other private parties to leave, they are allowed to carry on any activity that is legal.
No, they can carry on any activity that the owner agrees to in the rental agreement.
But even in the context of premium offerings, a publicly traded corporation is not allowed to deny access to premium services and products to any law-abiding customer that has the means to purchase them.
Absolutely wrong unless they're discriminating on the basis someone's membership in a protected class as I described above.
Where did you get this idea?
Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter are NOT privately owned businesses...
Again, other than securities laws I challenge you to cite a law that applies differently to FB than to FR.
Here’s all you are getting for free, as posted on another thread:
Marsh v. Alabama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
Look, you are not knowledgeable about law or case law. I am not going to put up with your caustic demands anymore because they abuse the time of others. Consult a competent counsel or do the legal research yourself.