zlacker

I don’t care.

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.

>>vmcept+(OP)
You asked a question, who better than Kendall to speak on the topic, I provided an answer. You said you don't care, and anyone will do.

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?

>>s1arti+Kd
I’m saying the mere presence of a potential conflict of interest dont matter to me.

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

>>vmcept+Mp
I don't care that they made money, but I also don't trust Kendall to spin the topic if it suits their interests. Why would anyone trust the manufacturer of anti-facebook software about the dangers of facebook.

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.