That's a good and reasonable personal ethic, but it transfers into a (imo) poor, even disingenuous public discourse.

Let's say we're talking about the clickbait/trolling problem in political discourse. We can berate some prominent individual, but that individual is inevitable. If she wasn't doing the clickbait, someone else would be and we'd be beratying them.

Focusing on the individual when a problem is systemic can be empty, righteous moralising.

The individuals come together to create a society with rules. To be a part of society one must follow those rules.

Ethics, to me, have a place there, and it would be better in all cases to establish those rules or norms in your society, or your culture, rather than regressive actions like banning something.

Bans are a type of rule/norm.

I remember a documentary about drug dealers, and these were the exact words that they used to justify their deeds: "If I don't do it, someone else will, so it makes no difference".

Is case by case, in this case if they think is so bad, say selling hard drugs, should be a ban. Facial recognition banned is like AI banned under the same reasonings. Others will be doing it.

uhh wouldn't that mean you don't do anything? Not everything you don't do is evil ;)

A very noble approach, however in the life of business, moral has no place. Which is very unfortunate in my opinion. I couldn't imagine how the world would look like if everyone thought the way you do...

Doing something legal but immoral to boost your profit margins is by definition immoral. I don't know how some ceos sleep at night.

People who don't sleep at night when they do immoral things don't tend to become CEOs.

Probably on stacks of money.

In capitalism system everything is equated to money: ethics, success, self-worth.

To be exact, it is tied to short term earnings.