Dead simple: just tell what you want to, to whom you want to, and no one else. Just like you would with reasonable tools like e-mail, instant messaging, or physical interaction. Normal, ordinary social networking. Ironically, Facebook, doesn't let you do just that.
Now, you probably use the term "social networking" for something different from "interacting with people". If so, I'd like to know how you define social networking.
If your idea of social networking is fulfilled by email, instant messaging, and physical interaction, then why would you want another tool that did things fundamentally differently anyway? That's a classic case of "you have no need for Facebook", not "Facebook is evil because it doesn't do what you'd like".
Actually, I don't (want another tool). So, of course it's a case of "I have no need for Faceboook" (though I do think Facebook is evil).
Now I asked a question. Let me reformulate it: how do you define "social networking"? Why do you thing it is hard to reconcile it with privacy paranoia?
I don't think the term "social networking" is amenable to a formal, logical definition. It's mostly a category used to describe sites like Facebook, MySpace, or Loopt (previously Friendster and Orkut) so any site or service resembling those would be social networking. (Please refer here for the type of theory I am applying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory)
So far the most successful of those sites is Facebook; Facebook is difficult to use if one is paranoid about one's privacy. None of the other partial or past successes were successful due to their exceptional concern for privacy. One does not join a site designed for sharing things with other people in order to hide things from other people.
Now, you probably use the term "social networking" for something different from "interacting with people". If so, I'd like to know how you define social networking.