It takes a certain degree of naivety to believe that. It also lacks a certain degree of critical thinking to not ask the question "but what if some people choose not to share?" or the even easier question "can any of this be abused?"

Could have been just the best possible shot to avoid a neo-totalitarian society, and the current abuse could be actually a minor consequence (and completely manageable for nation states > take a look at EU GDPR).

"move fast and break things" > Why the hurry?

That moral opinions equals the one of Peter Thiel about the good in mass surveillance: based on his opinion that after 9/11, powerful western entities were on the side of really harsh intrusive countermeasures (and the restriction of current liberties quite probably), that could probably, fundamentally change the western societies as they existed at that moment.

The alternative to that way of doing things was to allow the existence of public and private entities like Facebook and their subrepticious intrusiveness, allowing mass surveillance, but also allowing to avoid other gruesome measures.

And that could explain why nobody can pull-out a facebook takedown.

"the cost of freedom is high..." JFK

I hope it's clear in my comment that I'm neither apologizing for Facebook nor sympathizing with Thiel and his crap etc. I think assuming-good-faith and looking for charitable explanations is a good practice, even if I actually don't believe people actually deserve the charity.