You are correct but there's an interesting question here with ramifications worth thinking through. Would we stick to this view if 90% of the world's population used it instead of the current 34%? Is there any % at which we might question your three statements? And if selected, why that figure? Seems odd that one person, a single smart lucky entrepreneur, would continue to be the moral arbiter for postings by its users irrespective of any view taken by democratically-elected governments anywhere. Of course one trusts that soon, alternatives will arise and allow those who want to, to jump ship.

Alternatives have been around for decades: https://friendi.ca/

People can't jump ship because of network effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect That's why you see mass exoduses, like what happened with WhatsApp; there's no interoperability between Facebook and the rest of the social media space, so you lose contact with nearly every Facebook user when you leave Facebook. You can put up with a lot when it's the only way to talk to your family.

By the same standard of freedom of association, users should have a say over whether Facebook collects any data about them I.e. no shadow profiles, and ability to sever one’s relationship with Facebook and purge all data.

> Facebook is not an essential service; it is not a monopoly

Depending on your social circles, it de facto is, and refusing to use it or being refused from it will result in being excluded from real-life social events.