Since you're not picking up on a social subtext, "we should not listen to them" here means "don't be influenced by them" or "don't take their words as granted". In other words, we should be skeptical, not literally shut them out.
I see an interesting schism in the discussion - there are two camps here.
One is normative: listen to tech CEO's if you want to predict what will happen.
Another is positive: let CEO's tell you what ought to happen.
What happened here was the original commenter talked about listening to Reid for normative reason but the conversation got derailed into ignoring CEO's for positive statements.
This is something I see often where one talks about what would happen but people barge in to signal their ethics and morals instead.
To be truly impartial I don't think you should even evaluate their claims directly. This allows them to focus the comparison on things they care about, not the things you care about. Instead you should decide what problems you need solving, and evaluate solutions to those problems against your own rubric.