But that’s besides my main point which is the fact that low quality entertainment is actively seeked by people actively wanting to forget about life. It’s the intentional zombification that worries me, especially when coupled with 24/7 availability and per-user engagement optimization. Socials, especially passive ones where you consume awfully more than you interact are just those escape hatches from stress, thoughts and boredom.

As a counter-point, I don't see this as worrisome. Your friend who is a public servant sounds professionally and intellectually fulfilled, and far better off and stable than others who've "failed to launch"/have unfulfilled ambitions due to failing to put in the hard work required (not necessarily due to laziness).

I know a couple people (plus myself at one point) who absorbed high-quality entertainment while being professionally unfulfilled. Activities included reading literature, watching artistic films, reading a middle-brow magazines like the New Yorker, and reading lots of New York Times articles. These took a lot of energy and gave a sense of achievement that could've been spent in accumulating career capital/developing career-relevant skills.

This wouldn't imply that entertainment is guaranteed to take away focus and energy from career development (plenty of counter-examples with historical figures), but it is possible for some people. So, I don't see low-quality entertainment as worrisome, so long as people have the main efforts of their life worked on, in tandem. Low-quality entertainment would be a problem, however, if it does distract from time spent on real, helpful work, versus as a stress reliever.

Separately, I would also separate low-quality produced entertainment limited by episodes from social media. They're very different, as social media is better optimized for infinite scrolling and outrage, while shows are more episodic (assuming a weaker, less-optimized pull for binge consumption).