Consider privacy. I'd wager that most people on HN would prefer it if major social media and advertising companies were doing more than waiting for legislation and implementing the bare minimum. "Privacy" in the aggregate is vague rather than concrete. Similarly, you could imagine a team who is responsible for addressing actual policy concerns around things like amplifying sectarian violence and also having a broader and more vague mission around "harm".

I think most privacy teams are responsible for compliance to legislation and, hence, have clearly defined, concrete goals. Are you disagreeing?

One would hope the goal of a privacy team would be to work to improve and maintain privacy, even if they are not strictly legally compelled to do so in the specific case.

No. I am saying that privacy teams often go beyond that and that this "beyond" is in the vague and ill defined territory.

Legal is the barest.minimum,.and at times actually can force bad practice to boot. (e.g. UK Network Security Guidance)

Thing is, any way Twitter can innovate in a way that would bring income is likely unethical. Either it will try to increase engagement by polarizing people - increasing heat; selling user data; showing advertising or additional worse things.