Yes if a "nonprofit publisher" made a tool to deal with something they found harmful, but then failed to deploy it because the harmful matter was so profitable

Yes if a "nonprofit publisher" made a tool to deal with something they found harmful, but then failed to deploy it because the harmful matter was so profitable (profitable in this usage doesn't always mean money. It can be any type of gain, such as user base, and stirring the pot to get users more active), I would say exactly the same thing I've been saying repeatedly here. Yes. Being non-profit doesn't absolve one of purposely letting harmful content by, and/or actively promoting it.