Two things:

1) Mozilla isn't right or wrong in this case, they just lack credibility on the matter which, again, warrants the type of response that the original and many other commentators here had.

2) Your analogy isn't quite 1:1 with this situation. If you were a railroad tycoon that flew daily to perform business and made a public statement about how awful flying on planes is and how everyone should stop in lieu of train travel, it would be hard to take you seriously and you would be rightfully called out. Mozilla likes to identify itself with the ethical side yet it is no better than the companies it is criticizing, going as far as being partially funded by one of them.

1) I disagree. I believe Mozilla is right, and engineers should consider the ethical implications of the things they're asked to build. This argument would be valid even if made by Mark Zuckerberg himself.

I'm fairly certain that the parent meant to say that the original criticism of Mozilla did not make any statement about whether the content of Mozilla's proselytizing is right or wrong.

Ok, then I guess we can all agree Mozilla are big stinky baddies and also that this is good advice.

Yes, we can.

Nobody has claimed that Mozilla's argument is invalid just because Mozilla are hypocrites for making it. People are expressing displeasure over Mozilla's hypocrisy, which is a valid issue, orthogonal to the merits of their proselytizing.

Edit: Sorry if I come across as belaboring, I hadn't read your other post. :)

Yes, I understand tu quoque, I just don't see it here. It appears to me that one must strawman the grandparents post in order to shoehorn tu quoque onto it.