It’s only true for them. Not for us.

From a moral perspective, a lot. From an amoral pragmatic perspective, not a lot – unless you think it'll somehow benefit you to give people the ability to effectively seek such things? Hah.

i don’t mean this as confrontational as it’s going to come across, but this is nonsense. it isn’t ineffective at all.

would you mind expanding on what you mean?

The whole point of social norms is that they define some boundaries of what is acceptable and not in some community. If someone violates the social boundaries because "they are looking for some way to make a living in any way possible" (which is not an excuse, I mean, "any way possible" would also justify stealing, robbing and murder to make a living) then they themselves choose to be "not us" and deserve to be shunned by our community.

This also does have a certain effect at solving this problem - if you know that telling people what you want to do is going to result in losing reputation and refusing to assist you, then that does act as some deterrent. The social pressure reduces the likelihood that people will choose to join that industry, and it reduces the likelihood that people in the industry will refuse some activities even if they are profitable. Even from pure game theory and evolutionary psychology we can observe that 'punishing defectors' is a viable strategy that gets some results.

It is important that we do not legitimize or normalize unethical behavior just because someone is trying to make a living through marketing; so whenever someone says "ah, we're all in the same boat, isn't everyone doing this?" it's important to loudly remind everyone that no, we're not all acting like this - ethics is a thing and proper people refuse to do improper things.

That sounds more like marquis de sade than nietzche imo.

i think nietzche is amoral only when what is moral is arbitrary and self deprecating.