When I read it, it felt more about the banality of evil than an explicit choice to be amoral - he actually explicitly goes into it a few paragraphs down. And it is a genuine problem in our industry. It's very easy for us to have our heads down and not think about how our personal morals misalign with the morals of our company (the latter of which often doesn't have a stated set of principles aside from the examples in the products, services, and marketing it creates). We can be moral people as individuals, but overlook it at an organizational level.

But none of that really comes into play with liberty and freedom of speech in a way that I can mesh. That much is a tangential subject. I'd be more concerned on that end if the article's conclusion was that the government should tell us what is moral, but it is asking us to think more about what we consider to be moral.

If your morals tell you that the way your company makes money is okay, then your morals are in alignment and the article doesn't really apply in your situation.