That's actually through two lenses: it's the image through lens of ultra-capitalism through the lens of Marxist thought. The mainstream economic position would be that "the good guys" are neutral as far as the market is concerned, which is mainly interested in satisfying the average of the goals of whoever is spending money. In this case the domain owners are spending the money, so this scandal would be "uncapitalistic" in the sense that the buyers aren't being served.
Maybe if you look at the market "blueprints", a static template not taking into account the dynamics of the actual system.
There are at least two ways the markets will work to erase those moral values that do not directly contribute to profit. One, moral values held by people are strong preferences, and as such they'll be exploited, as GP said. An ethically sound option will command a premium over the default state, because people who want it value it more, for non-monetary reasons. Two, given a mostly amoral demand, companies that compromise morals to lower costs/increase profits have a competitive advantage over those with integrity, forcing the latter to either abandon their principles or risk getting outcompeted.
You can also connect those two points together by noting that individuals are also competing - against each other for status, against the ever rising costs of living. The end result is such a low ceiling on morality as we observe. You can't possibly, at the same time, care about or even afford getting clothing made without slave labor, food made without extreme animal cruelty, jewlery and electronics that don't have blood of innocents in their supply pipeline, smart technologies that don't abuse people's privacy and prop up surveillance. Also note note that, when people are willing to express their ethical stance on any of those issues, a whole mini industry pops up - willing to sell you purportedly ethical goods at huge markup.
Yes, the market is as morally neutral as an internal combustion engine is a hunk of metal that's carbon neutral when it sits on the shelf. Things change when you fuel it up and turn it on.
(Now, I'm not saying "markets are bad". But they do have perverse side effects that need to be kept in mind and accounted for, before they consume the very civilization they helped build.)
Through the lens of ultra-capitalism, "the good guys" are a market imbalance to be exploited. A variation on "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain"
In hindsight, the fragility of overall Internet governance was incredibly obvious. Even if this .org sale goes ahead, the governance is still fragile because there are many other aspects to the Web / Internet that are still run by "the good guys" and therefore likely to already be in the sights of the morally bankrupt.
The question is, what can we do about it? How do we react to the .org sale to ensure that inevitable future shenanigans will be met by increasingly profit-negating blowback?
The long term fragmentation effects this may have on the web are... difficult to predict.