With the possible exception of "surveillance" everything you just said is also true of newspapers.
In theory, it is not. In practice, it is. Not only that, in case when there is a fight between almost anything (such as privacy, security,...) and convenience, the latter will always win (on large scale).
There is no public space on the internet, just a network of private residences.
Facebook has positioned itself as the public square. The freedoms of the press, speech and protest are predicated on equal access to these public forums and they clearly do not exist in our current media landscape.
Net neutrality/common carrier rules make the streets public space. But that means only open-source, authority-less p2p communication is free.
Everything else is under someone's thumb.
I've never really understood social media in this form, nor understood its takeover as primary communication channel and I'm not going to go full RMS or expect anyone else to have the same values as myself, but if people do share those values, and do want better than facetwitsnapagramblr (without any judgement on if they should) then they should have participated in building and using something better instead of deluding themselves.