I think that the point here is that all the controversy is because of a study from Facebook's own research. If a cigarette company came out with a study showing cigarettes were dangerous, perhaps it would be a different story.
Of course, I wouldn't say that being aware of the problems your product causes makes you less culpable; just the opposite.
At the same time, I think that when it comes to assessing whether the company is acting in good faith or not, it is important to consider not just what research they do or don’t do, but also which findings they choose to promote and which they choose to keep internal…
(Part of the fiasco with tobacco or climate is that those companies knew the risks associated with their products well enough, but didn’t publicize the findings that might cast them in a bad light in the same way that they publicized the findings that supported a “let’s wait and see” approach to policy. See for example https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...)
Sure, but if a cigarette company commission a whole load of research, sat on the "bad" results and publicized the "good" ones, and then a whistleblower came forwards and showed the world the bad ones they had sat on...
Of course, I wouldn't say that being aware of the problems your product causes makes you less culpable; just the opposite.