So what you're saying is that everyone will be better off if they just didn't know, right? Because the problem isn't funding evil, if you're not actively seeking the political views of other companies; it's knowingly funding evil. Therefore ignorance is morally correct.
Your line of argumentation is terrible. The major reason why it is terrible is because it is natural that people considering boycotting something they disagree with will weigh it against the utility it gives them. It's easy to boycott Woody Allen, Chic-fil-A, or Oculus, because all of the three are easily substituted and luxuries. It is extremely difficult to sacrifice a gas-running car without severe quality of life impacts or large amounts of wealth. Many people choose hybrids, public transit, walking, biking, etc to supplement their cars as part of limiting their footprints, but in large swaths of the world it is not feasible to go without entirely. No one is a hypocrite for making easy changes in their life while avoiding hard ones, and making any change for the better is better than making none.
Your followup in this post is also dumb. No one is making the point that ignorance is bliss; they're making the point that ignorance is ignorance. You can't make decisions based on information you don't have, you have to make decisions based on information you do have. Whether you're plugging your ears or spending your life reading about ethical issues, there will still be things you know and things you don't. If you want to make an argument that people should consider their consumption, I agree, but I doubt you're making that argument because you started the argument specifically to shit upon people for whom this revelation changed their impression of a product. So then your argument seems to be that you should not respond to information you do have, because what about information you don't have? That's stupid.
