You're misrepresenting the issue by exaggerating in the opposite direction. It isn't "we built twitter instead of saving people". It's that some people have a life threatening problem, a company already has the solution to that problem but they charge a (perhaps unreasonably - depending on who you ask) large sum for it, they actively suppress competitors who provide it for much much cheaper (thus saving lives), and finally they do it for a profit motive (which is perhaps petty - depending on who you ask).
Yes, it's not murder, but on the scale, it's still closer to that part of the spectrum rather than the good side. The reason I say this is that I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that this company chooses profits over saving lives, for whatever reason. If pharma companies truly valued saving lives over profits, they would reinvest some of those profits into actually saving lives instead of hoarding them. I don't envy those whose job it is to do that calculation.