> motives are not the defining factor regarding the public utility of leaking this material

An evaluation of likely motives is incorporated into the evaluation of the evidence. There are a lot of things that can't be known: How much is true? How much made up? How much is true but not representative of the totality?

> Frances Haugen's own motives

Motives aside, whether she is acting as a mole for intelligence agencies to gather support for enabling more 'round the clock surveillance of wrong-think under the guise of "blowing the whistle" is a defining factor.

If you have evidence of her working as a secret intelligence agency undercover operative, then I'll be incorporate that into views on this issue.

However, I think I'd still be glad that the information she leaked is now public, just like I'd be glad if a plot by intelligence agencies to systematically censor social media was made public, just like I've been glad when prior abuses by the government have been made public. Get it all out in the open.