'Facebook is clearly aware that losing its chief security officer and dissolving its dedicated security team, in the middle of all that’s going on, is not a great look. So many of the company’s statements today are clearly designed to address obvious concerns that arise.
“We expect to be judged on what we do to protect people’s security, not whether we have someone with a certain title,” a spokesperson said. In another statement, Facebook said it is “investing heavily in security to address new types of threats” and that its new security structure has “helped us do more to keep people safe.”'
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/1/17640852/facebook-cso-alex...
With that said, is it perhaps possible that some people might view this as subtly distinct from power plants, hospitals, roads, and ISPs? Those are what are generally considered "critical infrastructure".
I understand the point that you don't need facebook the way you need the ability to feed the people in the cities (and thus need roads and power plants). If facebook disappears, life will go on. But as long as it exists, control of it is critical like control over power plants.
In the sense that it's an immediate need for the continued basic functioning of the state, it's possible that there may be some distinctions that could be drawn. Some might opine that these are the distinctions that matter for the designation of what is and isn't critical infrastructure.