Not at all: just like platforms "suspend" account and may un-suspend it at their discretion, the government arrests suspects and confiscates property for evidence. That it ends after a year or two is of no help - the business is ruined, the person's good name is ruined. At least with the private platforms online our fellow users give us the presumption of innocence after a "suspension". Conversely, having been arrested or indicted is a long-lasting blemish.

Government and regulated institutions have endless ways of denying service - whether by finding procedural errors or by stalling. Iron property of bureaucracy. For example: KYC and AML laws hurt small businesses at random, including countless PayPal drama stories.

Again the difference is in culture and in reporting: account "suspended" is often reported and perceived as unjust and raise understandable outrage (the egregious cases aside), while legal proceedings are usually reported and perceived as just and proper.

My point is, if we were to change the private platforms to strict regulation or outright government provided services, almost all suspensions would be reported and perceived as the user's own fault, and probably for the better of the society. Which puts the incentives of such supposed service-provider completely out of whack.

Case in point: a government-provided account would be suspended "for the duration of investigation into spreading misleading information about health/elections/finances/etc.", and reporters and people would largely shrug it off as "well that's for the better". Oh and trying to open an account with another government would raise all sorts of red flags, naturally.