That's nonsense because it's so binary. Let's say you have product that takes 5 engineers to build without any consideration for security and safety whatsoever

That's nonsense because it's so binary. Let's say you have product that takes 5 engineers to build without any consideration for security and safety whatsoever, and it gives you a profit margin of x. Now say you add one engineer, which halves risk, and gives you a margin of (0.9 * x). Then you add another, halves risk again, profit is (0.8 * x). And so on. How many engineers should this company add to act 'ethically'? According to you, they need to cancel the product (I think - only for an ungenerously rigid interpretation of your comment). Risk is not 'it harms people or not'. Knowing whether your product harms people is more difficult still. And the question of who is responsible, more still. (and that's not just between the supplier and the user - also to other actors. To take the Grindr example, was it an engineering problem, a product design problem, a user education problem or a governance problem? I could argue for all of them. Who should act to mitigate the risk? I don't know, and it's not as clear-cut (in the abstract) as some here are letting on).