It's far saner to assume that all for-profit companies are in it to make money first and foremost, or will be eventually when they start to fail or have less scrupulous competition. From this starting point, and if you care to, you can then evaluate a company to get an informed opinion of whether or not they're doing "noble deeds", aligning with your interests, what you believe are societies interests, etc.

Assume your neighbours are noble by all means, but assuming all or even most large corporations are will lead to inevitable disappointment (or lessons learned).

I see a lot of the same with PE firms buying companies - "<PE firm> buys <beloved company that was failing> and lays off half the workers! Evil, evil PE firm!" Now obviously there's a fair amount of the time when PE firms do dividend recaps and other financial engineering that harm the companies, but there's plenty of time when they trim the fat from a failing company and save a lot of jobs. That doesn't make for a nice clickbaity headline, though.

One thing about the free market is it is constantly reallocating resources from lower performing uses to higher performing ones.

That's assuming the free market is actually free.

Some lower performing resources are at an inherent disadvantage, created by the higher performing ones.