There's a huge problem with that kind of live and let live argument, and we see such problems dramatically represented in the environmental case. With regards to the physical environment, we can't just let everyone behave however they want; environmental carelessness has consequences for all of us. So it isn't enough to say "I'll live my life green, but if you want to be wasteful that's your prerogative", because when they damage the environment, it's your environment they are damaging.
Similarly, Facebook is ruining the internet by making it walled, tiered, privately owned, and corporate run. Facebook is deeply engaged in the process of commodifying its users and selling them to the highest bidder. Not only is this dramatically inhumane, it has brutal consequences for the structure, legal framework, and ethos of the internet as a whole.
The more people who continue to use Facebook, the worse the internet is
. The surprising thing isn't that this is a fact: we all know Facebook is awful and getting worse by the day, and that young people are leaving the network in droves as it gets populated by mostly clueless over-40s.
Instead, the surprising thing is that despite knowing better
and despite the existence of better alternatives
, we still nevertheless refuse to collectively change our behavior.
The parallels with the environment are pretty obvious. If we can't consciously and deliberately ween ourselves off Facebook for the sake of fixing the internet, how can we ever expect to deliberately change our consumption behaviors for the sake of fixing the environment?