A private order of public communication has emerged. As social network services fulfil important communicative functions in political communication processes, the question of public interest and public law-based limits to their private power has to be carefully considered. A lot has been written about the failings of companies in deleting problematic content. This paper flips the question and asks under which conditions users can sue to reinstate content and under which circumstances courts have recognized ‘must carry’ obligations for social network services. We will analyze this question looking at a selection of US and German court cases on the question of reinstatement of accounts and republication of deleted posts, videos and tweets. We will draw out the differences in constitutional and statutory law and explain the divergence. Our analysis will also point to a larger issue of systemic relevance, namely the differences in treatment of states and private companies as threats to and/or guarantors of fundamental rights in the jurisdictions under comparison. Finally, we will show why it is important to not think about private ordering of communication as separate (or even separable) from the public interest.

中文翻译：

---

备份：用户可以起诉平台恢复已删除的内容吗？

出现了私人的公共传播秩序。随着社交网络服务在政治沟通过程中履行重要的沟通功能，必须认真考虑公共利益和基于公法的私人权力限制问题。关于公司在删除有问题的内容方面的失败，已有很多报道。本文提出了一个问题，并询问用户可以在哪些情况下提起诉讼以恢复内容，以及在何种情况下法院已承认社交网络服务的“必须承担”义务。我们将针对一些美国和德国法院的案例来分析此问题，这些案例涉及恢复帐户和重新发布已删除帖子，视频和推文的问题。我们将找出宪法和成文法中的差异，并解释差异。我们的分析还将指出一个更大的系统相关性问题，即在所比较的司法管辖区中，将国家和私营公司作为对基本权利的威胁和/或保证人对待的区别。最后，我们将说明为什么重要的是不要将私人交流秩序与公共利益分开（甚至是分开）。