Unless you think he's lying, who fucking cares what his motivation for whistleblowing is? Many whistleblowers want to get back at companies that screwed them, or want to get interviewed on cable news, or want a book deal, or whatever. Who fucking cares if they're not ideologically pure altruistic saints? What matters is the truth, not the motivations of those telling the truth.

(Do people with exclusively pure selfless motivations even exist? Even people who donate to charities anonymously are plausibly motivated at least in part by the warm tingly feeling they enjoy when giving charitably.)

These things aren't mutually exclusive, a testimony in Congress is inherently a public memorialization.

Tim Kendall has been an outspoken critic for a long time and also a recent central figure in the movie "The Social Dilemma" which is the about the same thing and will lead to more speaking engagements on the topic.

That doesn't dilute the message. If you think it does, what does a better arbiter of this aspect of reality look like? Who would that person be and what would their credentials be?

What do you mean they have been an outspoken critic for a long time?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

What evidence do you have to back up these claims?

“It seems like these mea culpa admissions might be motivated...”

It seems like you’re not willing to state there is another agenda but you want to attack people speaking up anyway — because they were part of the problem or contributed to it, that anything they say now doesn’t matter.

I don’t think this is constructive.