Not expressing an opinion against immoral things is also a political act. You are saying that profits should come before everything else.
Also, re "you are saying", there's an HN guideline that asks you not to argue this way: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." That's because arguing this way consistently leads to more boring comments, and it's easy enough not to do if you remember the rule.
Summarizing arguments is necessary when people obfuscate the true argument they are making. Dog whistles are a great example of this. If you can't all an argument out for what it is, you can't refute it at all.
I very deliberately expressed no opinion in that regard.
Not expressing an opinion within a moral argument is political only with regards for the motive of inaction. Taken to a greater extreme people are not necessarily expressing politics by not agreeing with your opinion.
Profits should indeed come before everything else.
The previous sentence isn't a statement of politics, it's a statement of fact, and the only thing that can make it false is post-scarcity.