What I was trying to say is that as individuals we can choose to seek a social life outside of Meta's empire. Perhaps socialisation doesn't exist outside of walled gardens any more, but the universe is full of surprises.
As individuals? If your friends and family all use meta products, are you suggesting to get new friends and family, or to convince them all to use other products?
Yes, you have that choice. Perhaps you decide that the cost of trying to build a social life outside of the "meta monopoly" is too high. But in life you have choices, there are people out there who also want to construct a social fabric outside of Meta.
I didn't ask if you/I have that choice, I asked if you think it reasonable - I think most would consider abandoning family and current friends over the issue is "too high" at least, extreme and immoral at worst.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question, I didn't see where it was asking about being reasonable.
"As individuals? If your friends and family all use meta products, are you suggesting to get new friends and family, or to convince them all to use other products?"
I think it is perfectly reasonable to try and convince friends and family that they use other products if you believe that a Meta Monopoly is harmful.
I do have such a social life with real friends in the real world. Cutting out Meta products would reduce how often I see those friends because I would be missing out on communication and planning for those groups.
Ideally they could all switch to a different platform but getting everyone in a group to make that switch is difficult.
My point is that social networks and real-world interaction aren't exclusive. These products facilitate a lot of real-world social interaction as well, and the network effect of most people having an account there makes it hard to move away from.