Come on.
I wish I remember the article that explained this to me, but "participate, but try to change it from the inside" pretty much simplifies into just "participate." So all those good people will end up doing (from the inside) is help Facebook achieve Facebook's existing bad goals.
The best thing a "good person" can do to Facebook is leak and hope an external entity takes it down, but most of those good people won't have access to anything that's worth leaking.
I can buy this reasoning for people in leadership positions, but it seems rationalization for peons working on logging systems, performance etc.
Note that there is an alternative - making bad things illegal or enforcing existing laws. That is hard to do - but still easier than somehow convincing FB to act against its own interests.
E.g. Which cigarette company went furthest in marketing to children, are they still in business? Did any car companies refuse to include seat belts after their safety records were prooven, did they loose good workers as a result of that stubbornness?
Facebook famously and studiously (and in hindsight extremely accurately) bought out every conceivable future competitor ensuring they truly don’t have competition in their real market. And their top brass know exactly what company and market they are in contrary to popular belief. barring legislation to split or curtail this org it will continue to metastasize and thrive in the world with reckless abandon.
They may just be smart enough to know that it's not irrefutable proof.