Honest question: Were they outspoken when they were a director at FB, or when they were president at pinterest? Or did it start two years ago when they became CEO of Moment selling an app to cut down on screen time?
In my mind, an ideal arbiter isn't also selling a product to fix the problem they are raising awareness about.
This doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true, or that they didn't have a real change of heart, but is certainly a conflict of interests.
Don’t get high on your own supply.
Users of drugs know this about their dealers, users of these dopamine producing platforms do not.
Anyone to spread the message, especially an authoritative source, directly to the representatives to do something about it, is the right start.
History has shown this is better. When mayors and representatives try to get their own population off of drugs, it hasn’t ended well for the state.
If a public servant cant effectively do it, then you only have people left that would have a conflict of interest, not controversial.
I don't really follow the rest of your comment.
You say anyone speaking to the representatives is a good start, but representatives are ineffective. Also, why can only those trying profit/exploit an addict be of help?
I’m saying I dont care if there is some way their current predilection can be seen as disingenuous because they made a bunch of money or maybe have a new company that can make a bunch of money.
Those are the things I dont care about
In this case, it doesn't much matter because they didn't say anything new or of substance. Facebook is designed to be "addictive". Any psychology undergrad could tell you this.