I don't think that's the most charitable reading of his statement—he's not saying that he personally, or any company he has control over is offering people that "choice." He's saying that in any market there will always be bad actors, so you also need to protect yourself.

An analogy: you won't ever be able to stop all potential muggers. You can choose not to be a mugger, tell everyone you know not to assault and rob anybody, make PR campaigns about it, teach it in schools, create social programs to ensure people aren't poor enough to need to rob anybody, etc. But, no matter what you do, there are still going to be some people who choose to mug people anyway. Pretending you can 100% solve mugging through outreach to the muggers is just ignoring reality and leaving people vulnerable. You have to approach the problem from both ends: decreasing the number of muggers, but also teaching people self-defence so they're less vulnerable to whatever amount of mugging might still happen.

(In the interests of avoiding politicizing the discussion, please do not reference the other assault crime that people usually argue about. Mugging works well-enough.)