While I get what you are saying and am by no means arguing in favor of Fox Con, I believe you are turning my shades of gray argument back to black and white. There isn't a strict dividing line between the acceptable and unacceptable; it's a gradient. There is worse than Fox Con and there is worse than what is worse than Fox Con (and so on, ad nauseam).
My point is that it is foolish to use Fox Con as the poster child of this issue when there are far worse situations. It does a great disservice to the argument. Most people will stop at Fox Con in their exploration of the situation and say to themselves "That's horrible. We should do something about that," instead of "It's horrible that Fox Con is a better option for most people and that there is worse out there. We should dig deeper and fix the problem from the ground up until Fox Con is the worst of the worst and then we can fix that."