Your fifth point is notably in error. The issue is one of changing norms; you can change the norms of behavior that people expect of themselves and others in part by changing how they think about other people. That's why you dehumanize the enemy in war with names like "Charlie," for example. That means changing the internal narrative that people use when they think about the person or group of people they are interacting with. Popular entertainment--be it television, video gaming, or via other media--is one way to begin influencing the narrative of a large number of people.
Certainly, there is an economic cost to the individual company to optimizing its narrative in part along the dimension of positive norm-building in those circumstances where it is not in keeping with optimization for marketing to the company's target demographic. However, there is also a cost to society to leaving the norms that this fails to challenge in place. That latter cost may result in many wasted lives, in substantial domestic violence, and in similar things generally considered bad today's standards. When the cost to society exceeds the gain to the company, society has a role in encouraging the company to behave differently. The only legitimate reasons we don't mandate that the company behave differently are that it is very hard to measure the cost to society and that the potential for misuse of the power of censorship is significant enough that we don't give that power to government except in the most extreme situations.