So, you are forcing people to accept something regardless of their opinion.

Isn't that the principle of authoritarianism?

Sure, you have vote, you may ot many not have freedoms depending of the country, but did that person accepted that social contract?

What is the difference with slavery? The social contract is basically slavery of born children to do whatever the "nation" says. This is not different than a slave and their owner.

The description of social contract does not imply that it was signed by me

As Hume called it, a convenient fiction. It isn't how any government came to be, and a contract imposed under threat of force isn't valid anyway.

I'm reminded also of that meme cartoon with the annoying person coming out of a hole and observing the suffering citizen is still participating in society, "how interesting".

Which one? Hobbes's, Rousseau's, Locke's, or Spencer's? Generally, these so-called contracts are morally fashionable bandwagons attempting to appeal to some vague authority. They lack at least two elements that make a contract in the proper sense of the term: mutual consideration and clear, well-defined, promises of fixed duration and scope. There's no contractual obligation to keep a society "alive" indefinitely and for its own sake anymore than there was one to keep the British Empire in tact.