The general points are valid, but the problem is that the specific issues being decried aren't clearly as objective as these spokespeople say they are.
For example, I watched a video of John Stamos talking to at Stanford about the challenges which Facebook has moderating content.
He put up 2 examples, after talking about how some of his investigators are ex-NSA.
The problem with his example is that the display of hate-mongering ads isn't necessarily ideological.
Wired published an article in 2017 (Inside the Macedonian Fake News complex) about a bunch of young people in Macedonia have been publishing exactly such ads - specifically targeting the 2016 election - purely in order to make money. They had very poor English and no ideological agenda - but the economics of online advertising is what drove their activity. Even the content they published was sourced from others; they simply chose what they deemed the most "effective" for clickbait purposes.
So there are at least one Macedonian town's worth of such muckrakers. Why should that be the only one?
Then there's the scale of which "the Russians" are supposed to have done ill. That may well be true, but it is still not clear to me how the $100,000 of spending by the RIA somehow significantly mattered vs. the $1.8 billion spent online - $1.1 billion by the Clinton campaign and $750M by Trump. We're talking literally 0.01% of the spend (vs. Clinton) - an addition of 0.013% to "pro-Trump" ad spend.
Note that Stamos said that the data on spend ($100K, RIA, ads used etc) was all from his team - so he can't claim ignorance as the the provenance of this figure, nor should he be ignorant of just how much revenue Facebook generated as a result of 2016 presidential spending.
Note that overall political spending in 2016 was $10 billion...