I added the Stallman comparison to take a jab at those who demand special treatment because they refuse to use popular services for kooky reasons 
I sympathise with the person being discussed here, but the bottom line is that she refuses to listen when people tell here that there's easy ways round the problems she's seeing.
I believe she's running Windows and that she protests that she can't afford to buy a "new" computer, which probably means v7 or later. I suspect that she's using whatever browser was shipped with it, which- if it really is an old computer- is probably so raddled with unfixed security flaws that she's far more at risk from that than from using even the most intrusive social media.
Firefox still supports OSes that "old", and is reasonably well-behaved when it comes to leaking embarassing details of ones personal life (whether or not the person being discussed has any, I prefer not to speculate).
It's possible- in fact this is how I have worked for the last 20 years or so- to have a default profile with absolutely everything locked down (install NoScript, disable more of the JavaScript etc. internal support and so on) and that will be /far/ more robust than anything shipped with an old version of Windows: and /far/ less intrusive than e.g. Chrome.
Then have a separate profile used /only/ for Github etc., another separate profile used only for banking, and so on.
There is absolutely no reason for even the most paranoid to not do something like that. And I write as somebody who has resolutely avoided Twitter, Facebook, Whatsapp and so on: sometimes to my detriment, but basically the only things they know about me have been acquired without my consent.
I don't like faceless multinationals. I like rapacious American companies masquerading as multinationals even less. But my dislike for those is nothing when compared with persistent messaging that I really /must/ join such-and-such a communications channel, and that extends all the way from Facebook to Joanna's execrable IRC.
MarkMLl