Except the lord is not free to decide as he pleases. Governments around the world have been putting pressure on FB to censor certain kinds of content. Most of them also have a narrower definition of "free speech" compared to the US. The German government especially has been involved in this, pushing the social network to censor "hate speech". This has prompted FB to hire German company Arvato to handle reports of inappropriate content. These also seem to be the people that newspaper was dealing with.
So you are saying that Mark Zuckerberg is a dictator and no one has the freedom to leave his rule?
This is so different, if you don't like Facebook use a competitors service. If a good one doesn't exist that lines up with your moral aspirations create one. But under Saddam and Gaddafi, you don't like them, keep quiet or you might disappear, if the wrong person over hears you.
The product manager for Google Plus just punched a hole in his hat.
On a serious note, there were platforms that used to dominate discourse on the internet before Facebook. Usenet, ICQ, AOL, Myspace.
Now there are alternatives. Medium for blogging; Reddit and 4chan for discussion; Twitter for sharing breaking news, trolling celebrities, and complaining about customer service; LinkedIn for connections and keeping in touch; Pinterest for sharing photos and links; Snapchat for sharing photos and videos; et cetera. I have a few friends, particularly in the 25-and-below generation, who don't have a Facebook but are very active on Snapchat or when it was trendy, Vine.
Don't forget countries where Facebook is a minority player. Weibo, Renren, WeChat, VKontakte are examples of thriving social networks that could possibly grow beyond their borders.
social networks are a natural monopoly, you want everybody to be on the same one. So if you want to avoid the centralized authority problem, you need to define it as a network of many nodes communicating via open protocols. Sort of like email. This is how Diaspora and GNU Social work.