I think there may even be an argument that a stance like this can do more damage than good. It may actually normalize the view that it's sufficient to promote on social media but ultimately take no action. There's a danger of furthering a sense of complacency where we want to do the right thing, but where sufficiency in "the right thing" has been normalized down to a grumble and a tweet rather than to actually take real action at any real personal cost.
Alternatively put, if everyone else doesn't do the hard bit, why should I?
Consider real leadership that makes the hard choices and leads by example. You see a friend step up against something at cost to them, and it's that what motivates you to join them. Leading by example is what motivates people.
I think it would have been so much more effective if Jeff returned the dishwasher. People see that personal cost and it _means something_. Otherwise why bother? I mean, that's what Jeff does, right?
So here's the thing. It would be unfairly cynical to suggest that Jeff is only doing this to further his own content as a content creator. I think most would agree that Jeff is also frustrated by this and wants to push back. And as someone with influence any impact he can make is undoubtedly a good thing. It's even easier to say nothing at all.
But it is also hard to separate out to what degree the motivation to put in the effort to write an article, produce and edit a video stems from the desire for content and what stems for the desire for real change. It is somewhat telling that he had the time and motivation to produce the video (which is also a ton of work), but not to return the dishwasher?
Real advocacy has to go beyond influencers promoting causes that already align with their target audience. We have to go beyond just saying things on social media in the belief that that is somehow sufficient to "do our bit". Otherwise we can kid ourselves that we're doing good, when are we really, really? Real advocacy requires real change, and that's the hard bit.