There’s nothing nefarious about it. These are 2 of many relative priorities. For example, at one extreme, some people care only about impact and don’t care at

There’s nothing nefarious about it. These are 2 of many relative priorities. For example, at one extreme, some people care only about impact and don’t care at all about money; that usually leads to a not-for-profit. At the other extreme is barely-legal greyhat malware/adware, where a lot of collateral damage is accepted as long as it’s profitable. I wouldn’t personally be comfortable with the tradeoffs that Outreach made, but it’s legal and making them doesn’t make them evil. One might describe it as greedy. (I don’t think greed is newsworthy and I’m far from the only person to see it here. Regarding evidence of Outreach’s spot on the continuum, https://twitter.com/annepmitchell/status/671386007850192896 https://twitter.com/annepmitchell/status/671386007850192896, https://twitter.com/dswiese/status/713039678287405056 https://twitter.com/dswiese/status/713039678287405056, and https://twitter.com/troyd/status/753721604081799168 https://twitter.com/troyd/status/753721604081799168 are 3 of many examples.)