Well, I guess that depends upon *which part* of the heritage of the United States you mean. Your quoting of the Mayflower Compact brings to mind part of the story of that early colony founded by the pilgrims, and the origins of Thanksgiving, that most of us didn't learn in school:
"It's wrong to say that America was founded by capitalists. In fact, America was founded by socialists who had the humility to learn from their initial mistakes and embrace freedom. One of the earliest and arguably most historically significant North American colonies was Plymouth Colony, founded in 1620 in what is now known as Plymouth, Massachusetts. As I've outlined in greater detail here before (Lessons From a Capitalist Thanksgiving), the original colony had written into its charter a system of communal property and labor. As William Bradford recorded in his Of Plymouth Plantation, a people who had formerly been known for their virtue and hard work became lazy and unproductive. Resources were squandered, vegetables were allowed to rot on the ground and mass starvation was the result. And where there is starvation, there is plague. After 2 1/2 years, the leaders of the colony decided to abandon their socialist mandate and create a system which honored private property. The colony survived and thrived and the abundance which resulted was what was celebrated at that iconic Thanksgiving feast."
I don't use Facebook either. I had an account there for several years, and one day they suddenly locked me out of it with no warning because they didn't think I was using my "real" name. Eventually they restored my access months later, but by that point I'd decided I didn't like the way they operated and didn't want to be on their site anymore.
In a sense, I don't particularly care where the government that claims me as a citizen is located, or what territory it controls. What I care about are things like how much freedom I have, how high the taxes are, whether my personal liberty and privacy are respected, whether I have the ability to travel, etc. If more people focused on those types of things, i.e. viewing the world in terms of peoples' quality of life instead of in terms of countries and national boundaries and so on, I think there would be fewer wars.
To use a sporting analogy, do you go to a game in order to root for "your team" to win over the opposing team, or do you go in order to enjoy watching talented people engaged in a competition? Of course it may be more "fun" to attend a game when you really care about the outcome (i.e. wanting "your" team to win), but imagine if people were getting injured and killed in the stadium as fans fought with each other, and players were being exploited by power-hungry coaches driven to win, etc. Then would it still be fun?
That's what the world is like. People identifying with the countries they live in (nationalism) causes them to support discrimination or violence against people in other countries, because they think that this will make "their team" safer, or more powerful, or whatever. Power-hungry politicians exploit these feelings to expand their control and make themselves richer and more powerful at the expense of people in "their" countries or others. Nationalism is as harmful and ugly as racism, sexism, or homophobia.
The other two respondents both give good answers. Basically, the more government control a society has, especially over the economy, the less prosperous people there will tend to be in the long run. I say "in the long run" because obviously if people in a particular jurisdiction have a certain degree of prosperity, it may take a while for the negative effects of statism to be felt. Venezuela is a terrific example of a country that was relatively prosperous, being blessed with oil, which has just been wrecked by statist policies, first under Hugo Chavez and now his hand-picked successor Nicolas Maduro. These effects are predictable – I remember reading about Chavez's agenda when he first came to power and Venezuela was still doing relatively well and thinking, "that country does not have a bright future". But at the time, Chavez was a media darling; many people in the United States were saying laudatory things about him and the movement that brought him to power. Not so much any more.
Maybe the people running the site are not publicizing or advertising it?
Maybe dominant search engines are not giving them favorable rankings, preferring to lead people toward their own preferred social media sites?
People can help with the latter problem, by the way, by using less invasive/domineering search engines, e.g. Startpage.com, DuckDuckGo.com, to find stuff on the Internet.
Yes, to the extent that voting in the democracy respects people's economic freedom, and does not involve using government force to restrict individuals from making their own peaceful choices over how to use their own time, money, body, and property. Capitalism is simply the freedom to engage in mutually consensual trade (buying/selling/bartering) without outside (e.g. government) interference. What you choose to do with that freedom, to the extent you may possess it, is up to you. Just as what you choose to do with any object or tool or freedom you possess is up to you. Free speech for instance can be used for friendly chat and rational discourse, or for personal insults and offensive comments ("hate speech"), and a weapon can be used to injure or kill someone, or to defend yourself or others from being injured or killed.
I agree with those saying quality over quantity. More importantly, I think it's important for Internet users (read: everyone) to ensure that there are a wide variety of sites being used, and not put all our eggs in one or two baskets of the dominant Internet sites. The more that people do that, the more all of us will lose our choices and independence, as they take advantage of the situation to tilt the rules more in their favor, exploit us, and harvest our data. The freedom to be anonymous online, i.e. being guaranteed only to be an actual human being but not tied to an offline identity, is important and should be fought for by those who care about freedom and empowering individuals. The alternative is humanity's enslavement to big institutions.