I think they should not be pushed or motivated by anything but the interest of keeping Bitcoin updated. If they start acting like influencers then that is their choice. Coredevs or not, ultimately they do not speak for Bitcoin. The Bitcoin community does.
That's confused too. Various shitcoins have "developers" in the housing construction sense: people who create or were paid to create the shitcoin, premined the hell out of, and profit from other people using it.
Bitcoin has contributors-- these are the some the most hard core Bitcoiner out there and/or to the extent they're paid by anyone they're paid by the most hard core Bitcoiners out there. No one benefits from some premine, no one has a particular control of the system itself, people benefit from the value of Bitcoin being preserved (and or going up) just like any other Bitcoin enthusiast. By unlike many enthusiasts they aren't on the sidelines doing nothing about it-- they're putting their time and money where their mouth is and doing the work to provide Bitcoin with what they think it needs.
So I would flip your comment around-- everyone can and should speak up for how Bitcoin should be, but particularly people who have put themselves out there to learn the details and done the work. No one gets to tell anyone else what to do in Bitcoin. If you don't like what some developer is doing then you're free to do something else, to learn how if you don't know, or to pay someone to do a thing for you if you don't have time to learn. But don't be surprised to learn that often such disagreements get cured by better understanding.
It's no surprise the the only well known 'developer' associated with filterrooning is a recent no-coiner and that his primary promoters are relatively new bitcoin users who are now talking about how they've been selling their coins. People who believe in Bitcoin and have wide ranging competence don't fall for the filter hysteria.
