The Facebook example involves third parties in the form of the people who get to see your previously private info. It's not just between you and Facebook.
Likewise, the RIAA example involves a third party in the form of YouTube.
Finally, the MS/EA/Sony example involves a third party in the form of the courts.
Ironically, I think your last two examples are a near-perfect fit for the people trying to argue about coffee shop squatters. They're taking what should be a private interaction between two private entities and attempting to butt in to control that interaction in a way that suits them, much like the hypothetical RIAA is trying to control your interaction with YouTube, or the hypothetical MS/EA/Sony is trying to control your interaction with the courts.
"If the RIAA wants to DMCA your YouTube video because there was a copyrighted song playing on a radio in the background, that's between you and the RIAA."
"If Microsoft/EA/Sony/everyone else wants to modify their terms of service to prevent you from suing them for any reason, and require you to agree to those terms to continue using goods and services you've already paid for, that's between you and <insert major tech company here>."
Vigorous public debate on corporate policy is clearly in the public interest, whether the issue is big or small. What's so difficult to understand about that?