I tend to agree with your sentiment. I read the Mozilla document and it’s not so much about an analytical approach to ethics and computing but an activist approach based on particular values (many of which I personally agree with but that’s beside the point).
In terms of ethics, the papers by Batya Friedman and Peter Kahn were incredibly influential to me and many of which I would consider required reading for anyone interested I studying ethics and computing.
Yes, it's that sort of thing that makes me very doubtful. On a meta-level, if one's ethics require some kind of subterfuge, underhandedness, and so forth to be introduced to a theoretically-naive audience to slip past their radar, I begin to doubt the package itself. Is it really a Trojan horse?
Usually that sort of thing comes coupled with "you are either with us or against us" later when that ethical bundle is in some phase of ascendancy.
On the other hand, taking a package whole seems to be less work, intellectually, than "be mindful, examine your choices and their impacts, cui bono" and so on.
In terms of ethics, the papers by Batya Friedman and Peter Kahn were incredibly influential to me and many of which I would consider required reading for anyone interested I studying ethics and computing.