I don't understand what you're saying. It seems like you're stating an answer, which is "no". Then you ask two rhetorical questions, to which my answers are both "yes". The issue i believe you're bringing up is accountability. Who is responsible when a little girl becomes the victim of a Facebook predator. In my opinion, if that person was previously unable to create a fake Facebook account prior to reading the hub, the writer of the hub has clearly enabled them. I'm not saying that the writer of this hub is an evil person. She had her own reason to write the hub and I respect that. But to me, this kind of information left open to the internet while the writer's back is turned is like lighting a fire with the good intentions of roasting marshmallows only to have it turn into a forest fire.
That aside, I understand your point about accountability. It's like McDonald's. Fat people point their fingers at the company that makes the unhealthy food that they can't stop eating. I do not blame McDonald's or Burger King for the people who cannot control what they eat, the same way that I cannot blame the writer for the decisions and interests of some predator. But there is no denying the fact that McDonald's enables poor people to gorge themselves by selling large quantities of unhealthy food at cheap prices in a similar way to the Facebook issue.
Society as a whole includes both the enablers and the doers. In my opinion, since we know that their are people out there who cannot be morally responsible with the decisions they make, why do we leave it upon them to be more socially acceptable rather than cut off the information that enables them? When a child is getting fat, do you continue to feed it candy or do you make the decision for them to cut them off?