well, that's only mild indoctrination.
intense indoctrination requires that it be done through the internet, via an optional social media service.
intense indoctrination requires that it be done through the internet, via an optional social media service.
Owning a car is 'optional' in the same sense. In that in many places in the U.S it isn't optional, unless you're self-employed. Otherwise, you're going to be unemployed. There is a large trade off for making the choice.
Any people who willingly opt out of social media (especially Facebook) risk alienating themselves from friends and family entirely. Seen as "weird" for opting out of having a FB/refusing to use it entirely. Even weirder if you cite "privacy concerns" as your reasoning for not having it.
There is far too much social pressure for most people to put up with not having one. Unless they already lead healthy social lives or are socially reclusive enough that social pressure is lost entirely on them.
Source: Living life without Facebook
[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/10/16/survey-finds-teens-pr...
Either way, my broader point was "social media being 'optional' doesn't really mean it is 'optional'". You can opt out - but there is a tradeoff that not everyone is willing to make.
As for indoctrination - I'm far more concerned with 18-25 year olds who have the ability to vote being indoctrinated into a certain mindset than 13-17 year olds. (E: You know what, on a second visit to my post both are equally bad as the 13-17 will be able to vote "soon" too.)
ps: Twitter has a similar issue. They suppress and attempt to censor trending hashtags (preventing them from autocompleting) that go against their political standings.