If a G+ or Facebook achieve 90% of communication volume, it means that anonymity isn't an important factor for most people and you could in fact argue that the high market share is due to the fact that there are less problems with spam and abuse because there is accountability. If a significant amount of people desire anonymous communication, there will be a communication platform for them.
Also you can avoid G+ and the big-4 telecoms much easier than you can avoid living in a state. The need to live is much greater that need to have internet access, no matter how you slice it.
You can avoid living in a particular state more easily than you can avoid internet access, I'd argue. In 2011, the hardship of going without internet is much higher than the hardship of moving from California to Nevada, for example.
I do agree that national-level laws are more coercive, in part because many countries are just very large, and in part because immigration laws make it hard to move.
Also you can avoid G+ and the big-4 telecoms much easier than you can avoid living in a state. The need to live is much greater that need to have internet access, no matter how you slice it.