the problem is if the money they get isn't as simple as "the current salary"
also the chance that they a) don't have a sentiment about meta, b) ex-colleges they have good relations too and c) now about some internal workings is close to nothing
a) a is bad no matter if it's a positive or negative
b) is very bad, it pretty much guarantees some degree of non objective actions. Like in positions like lobbyist it's never "just bussiness" it's always about positive connections reinforced by positive interactions not "big" enough to be bribes but also not nothing. Which might be related to how they got this job.
c) is a potential even bigger problem, if the sentiment is negative this insider knowledge could be used to harm meta, which in turn gives meta munition to sue and hinder regulatory actions and for a positive sentiment they might subtle change decisions because they know how they "happen to unluckily collide with how meta does things" and similar. But they really shouldn't do that.
Worse even if the person acts perfectly neutral meta can try to fight/delay legislation just by "claiming" this person did abuse insider knowledge.
Lastly how do you know that there isn't an unofficial deal that meta will pick them up again with a superb salary after they happened to do subtly meta friendly politics.
Like don't get me wrong, the person might be cable to act neutral and there might not be any under the table agreements. It's even quite likely. But it's a pretty bad idea anyway because it stinks of corruption no matter if it actually involves corruption.
And it's not like Irland has a problem with decisions biased in benefit for big US tech they have even been sued over by the EU....
also the chance that they a) don't have a sentiment about meta, b) ex-colleges they have good relations too and c) now about some internal workings is close to nothing
a) a is bad no matter if it's a positive or negative
b) is very bad, it pretty much guarantees some degree of non objective actions. Like in positions like lobbyist it's never "just bussiness" it's always about positive connections reinforced by positive interactions not "big" enough to be bribes but also not nothing. Which might be related to how they got this job.
c) is a potential even bigger problem, if the sentiment is negative this insider knowledge could be used to harm meta, which in turn gives meta munition to sue and hinder regulatory actions and for a positive sentiment they might subtle change decisions because they know how they "happen to unluckily collide with how meta does things" and similar. But they really shouldn't do that.
Worse even if the person acts perfectly neutral meta can try to fight/delay legislation just by "claiming" this person did abuse insider knowledge.
Lastly how do you know that there isn't an unofficial deal that meta will pick them up again with a superb salary after they happened to do subtly meta friendly politics.
Like don't get me wrong, the person might be cable to act neutral and there might not be any under the table agreements. It's even quite likely. But it's a pretty bad idea anyway because it stinks of corruption no matter if it actually involves corruption.
And it's not like Irland has a problem with decisions biased in benefit for big US tech they have even been sued over by the EU....