We are probably coming at this from different angles. I don't deny those things but they're also not a counter-argument to the point I'm intending to make.

As an overly dramatic example, a slave might fall in love with the wife he met on a plantation, and the family he has, and even be grateful for them. Nevertheless, you probably don't want to use those facts to be a booster for slave plantations.

My argument is that all the good things you like about social networks, from a technical pov, could be had quite easily without the ads, political propoganda, and other ill-effects of the current popular social networks. Indeed, there are many open source projects that already provide the features you'd want. It's just that none has achieved the network you want.

This situation is unlike that of a large, complex physical infrastructure project, where you really do need to "put up" with a governement (or something like it) in order to get the thing built and maintained.

Yes the thing is valuable because of the network and the network is there because of the network.

We don’t really rely too much on the navigability of the Hudson River anymore. But being next to it is still the most expensive land in the nation.

the point is that they are not mutually exclusive. you can have both. just don't put all your eggs in the corporate basket