Yet.
What happens when all your family and friends are on X (where X is (or is like)) Facebook or Google+, and the only way to keep in touch with them is by giving in and joining?
If they are only prepared to keep in touch with you through something like Facebook and Google+, then they're not really interested in keeping in touch. Rather go find people with which you are actually both mutually interested and stop chasing after 'obligations'. Life is too short.
Yes, or they are simply not interested in stories about the risks and plans of Google and Facebook. Or do not understand when you try to explain it.
A significant part of my family and friends is already on that path: only reachable through sites like facebook or gmail. Taking some "political stance" in not joining (how they see it) will very readily be translated in "you are not joining. you are not really interested in keeping in touch with me."
So no. It will work out precisely the other way around.
Either way, I think email is a pretty open method of communication. As hard as they've tried, FB/G+/Twitter have managed to augment rather than supplant email.
They're also pretty new. I suspect in 30 years, nobody will be using them, but email will still be around. (Probably still using SMTP and battling spam, TBH...)
And there is always the option of creating a puppet account on facebook and keeping any sensitive information anonymous.
My reading of his linked essay is as a discussion of the power dynamic between users and companies they rely on. This is compared with a romanticized version of feudalism. While the users are not compelled to actually use these services, once they enter into them they are at the mercy of the companies (feudal lords) to not take advantage of their much greater position of power (like his version of the early feudal era serfs).