You would be able to control the information about yourself, if you would publish it on your Web site (and set the robots.txt to exclude spiders). But if you give it to a "social" web site, you traded it in against the "service". So, basically you sold your information (to not say: you sold your soul).

Should you be able to reclaim your postings/pictures etc.? Yes, you should.
Would reclaiming your postings be against free speech? No.
Would it make "social" web sites more complex to manage and therefore a bit less attractive from a business point of view? Yes, you bet. But since when is this an argument for a law about control of your digital data?

Interesting argument. Why does it always need to be coal, when comparing nuclear power against another energy? Here is the car analogy: if you do not like this new electric car, you will need to use this monster truck, which runs 2 miles per gallon, which is far, far more dirty and dangerous.

Electricity prices in France and Germany are very much political prices. It has very little to do with nuclear power and very much with who subsidizes what (France: Tax payers subsidize nuclear power; Germany: Households (electricity users) subsidizes solar and other renewable energy installments).

Possible in Europe. It was long-time not interesting, because you could not get a contract, which actually removed the subsidies - but this changes currently and see: It's much cheaper to pay full price for your iPhone and then much less for the contract, then to have an subsidized iPhone with an expensive contract. Actually the incumbent wireless carriers in Europe fear those unbundled deals very much the same as the devil the holy water.

Bad analogy. The USPS does not have the contents of the letters that they have delivered to you. FB has.

Worse: If you do not use FB, you know that your friends and family will post personal information about you as well.

Why is there no alternative? FB is not really a required service you depend on.
Email and Internet access probably is a required service, but email is not centralized and monopolized, but using an open standardized protocol, Internet access at the other side is a classical man-in-the-middle problem - that's why ISPs are regulated (and at least in most countries forbidden to do man-in-the-middle actions) - and you can always use SSL and HTTPS to exclude your ISP from overhearing and profiting from your conversations.

No, email is not centralized (unless you refer to gmail and other BIG email providers). You know that you can run your own email server? - It's easy.

Actually, it is very easy to overlook this or ignore it (since it is so convenient). And unfortunately, it takes a lot of effort to open people's eyes so that they can see it.

To the contrary: the term applies absolutely. You just need to apply it on the social level instead on the technical level. Who is aware about FB (and its use of the information), while using FB? While it is visible, it is not perceived by the users as being the man-in-the-middle.

Moglen is absolutely correct and I am very impressed by this great analogy: Facebook (and some other "social" media) is a man-in-the-middle attack; it's just not a technical hack but a social hack. Best 20 second explanation ever.
Google might very well join them soon - if they use profiling on gmail conversations.

Correct. But why is a user outside of the USA redirected to a ccTLD, if he asks for "blogger.com"? More and more corporations are doing this redirection and it sucks big time. I, and probably most people, know how to write "google.de"or "google.fr" - if I write google.com, I want the same page as users in the USA. And the same is true for amazon, dell, hp, blogger, twitter etc.

Who is your congressman?

Thanks, I learned something today (even while Wikipedia is blacked out).
Legal language != intuitive (used) language

LOL. What the heck is "useful arts"? And what has it to do with copyright? So, not-so-useful arts get no copyrights?