You are talking about a company that willingly allowed one of its employees to be arrested when the government of that country was threatening to do so (apropos of the rightness or wrongness of that country in doing so), as a canary in a coal mine of sorts to decide whether they were willing to allow their executive team to travel there...

And then were okay with letting that person sit in jail longer because they thought it'd be better for Facebook PR if they did...

And then when they finally got that person out of jail, and later had him show up at a meet-n-greet with said executive team, Zuck didn't look up from his phone, looked confused, and said to his PA as he was leaving "who was that guy anyway, and why did he need to meet us?"

Or when Burmese dissidents, even the Burmese government itself, said that a FB feature would be used to track down and imprison, torture people the government didn't like, Zuck and FB leadership said "the feature is doing a lot to improve platform engagement, it needs to stay".

So the answer is worse. It's a combination of "the money" and pure psychopathy and sociopathy at the head of the dragon.