Just out of curiosity - would you describe companies that are commonly in the spotlight as more mercenary than average?
Since tptacek likes to present themselves as an authority on this kind of stuff, and does indeed have a reputation here, I feel it's important to point out that this isn't the first time they've carried water for Israel like this.
Examples: Calling Israel's exploding pagers war crime "surgical" [0] - which it absolutely was not, or, saying that Hamas should've taken the ceasefire deal they were offered [1] (rightly called out in the replies).
It's absurd to try and claim that Israel is 'no better or worse' than other nations in the 'spying on journalists phones' department. Especially when you look at why.
American surveillance is a pretty good example. "Lawful" intercept, geofence tracking, dragnet collection, commercial de-anonymization, America leads the way in a deeply unethical field. Yet, criticize Palantir et. al and people will find ways to argue it's necessary. Usually they create a boogeyman; "we're the good guys because we fight human traffickers and thieves" type of stuff. You don't have to look very closely at the marketing materials for these companies, they're very clear about using it on the "bad guys" to assuage the average insecurity. It's like the dog-and-pony we always see when iOS vs Android security is brought up; "it's not about my phone, it's the relative security of theirs!" When in reality, neither company is ethical or sells a secure product. They're excuses not to think, instead of logical arguments against the claim.
This isn't even a politics issue, either. These comments are a mirror reflection of one's character and their internal (often irrational) justification for an illogical stance. Often these comments aren't even rooted in a form of rhetoric, they just want to deflect the blow a little bit to cover their own ass emotionally. In the tech industry, I've noticed this happen a lot when people are embarrassed by their own work being discovered "in the wild" by peers.
I hate to tell you, but companies like the ones you allude to are incredibly interesting. They're also probably very immoral, and should be known by people who have an interest in infosec.
If you were working with one of these companies, you’d know it because it’s their primary/only product/focus.
I can only assume that there are actually some industry or professional repercussions for disclosing any specifics, because otherwise the only other logical explanation for such tight lipped discussion is that people are somewhat afraid to talk about these companies.
Also, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta probably have some of the most respected vulnerability research labs in the world. They, despite their many and varied other flaws, tend not to weaponise and profit from said research. I mean, they might, but they also do a pretty good job of actively and responsibly publishing this research.