The point is that you confused moral hazard with economic hazard in claiming that there was an economic hazard but not a moral hazard. When you have 5 million users paying $1/each, then pissing off a hundred of them makes very little difference to your bottom line, i.e. low economic hazard. But morally, because you sold them a product for $1/each, you owe them warranty of fitness, therefore the low economic hazard, i.e. the low economic consequences, introduces high moral hazard. When the situation is flipped, with 5 customers paying $1 million each, your high economic hazard in the risk of losing a customer aligns your moral incentives to do correctly by them, and you therefore have a low moral hazard.

I largely agree with you, except that you flipped the terms.

I think you know what they're arguing. It couldn't be clearer.

I should have known better then to take that bait. I'm not interested in pedantic philosophical debate about theoretical obligations skewed by imaginary prices that don't reflect real world business scenarios. In fact, I'm opting out of this entirely. Have a good night.