In the same way that you should take a software engineer's take on why a a SQL query is slow. They're probably the most knowledgeable person in the room but that doesn't always mean that they're right.
Should you trust meta about monopolism in the social media space, data ownership, child safety, the effects of new media on professional journalism, etc. etc. Big political questions intertwined with his companies' interests.
In any case, both in the hypothetical fb case and the real chase case: (1) you should listen, because they're in a position to have knowledge and insight. (2) You should also be extremely skeptical, and assume that they are making statements in pursuit of their interests.
That said, the content of this particular article is quite worth listening to. It's not really about the what. It's about the why.
You’ll find ways in which the analogy is “wrong”, but that’s just noise.
Analogies are a pretty good rhetorical device, IMO because we kind of think in abstract analogies anyway. We could have both made our points without analogy, but I don't think much content is lost.
His point is that Bankers are the professionals. This is true. I "complicated" the analogy/comment to highlight the tension between "bankers are knowledgeable professionals" and "bankers are an interested party."
In any case, I feel that analogies are ok. The problem with my comment might have been an overly combative or nitpicky tone, especially given that we probably agree of most of it.
You put your money with the bank, but only out of necessity, and usually it works out, and they have you by the balls the whole time