Let's say facebook sells customer data and eats babies, and you're opposed to both of those things. You come to the conclusion that you can outcompete facebook

Let's say facebook sells customer data and eats babies, and you're opposed to both of those things. You come to the conclusion that you can outcompete facebook without eating babies, but only if you're willing to sell customer data in the same way facebook currently does. You're trying to replace the incumbent so that less babies are eaten (or certain speech isn't censored, or certain speech is censored, or <insert any ethical cause besides the one you're compromising on>). It's that when you hold more than one value, they are sometimes at odds. If you try to be the most ethical in every regard you'll most likely be outcompeted, in which case you won't even be making an improvement in the current state of unethical behavior. Even finding tradeoffs that improve average ethics while also being competitive is difficult, since others are playing the same game without your ethical objections to certain practices.