I can't speak for the downvoters. I don't know whether the objections are to the question or to the way it is phrased.

Personally I see this as an important question. Codidact exists to provide freedom from the conflicts of interest associated with profit driven organisations. Users publicly raising potential sources of conflicting interest is an important part of that.

Important questions that go unasked also go unanswered. The responses from Monica and Mithical only exist because this question was posted.

I think many downvotes on this question are a reflection of the (de facto) different meaning of votes on meta, as discussed e.g. in the questions on whether Meta votes should affect user reputation. I assume that many of the downvotes are not objections to the question per se or the intention behind it, but a statement that the voters don't agree that there is a conflict of interest (at least in the severity expressed by the question). So, the downvotes should probably not be interpreted as discouraging the question itself, although I understand that it can be easily seen that way.

We may have to open a broader discussion on the way votes should be used on Meta, to prevent misunderstandings on both sides.

Thanks for the perspective. I appreciate that votes are difficult to interpret, particularly when the question seems to be also leaning towards an answer.

I suppose a large number of downvotes will probably also achieve the same as a large number of upvotes - more people will be likely to be curious why, and as a result the answer will get more visibility.