You are halfway to the correct answer. You are correctly recognizing that evil comes into an infinite spectrum of severity and many actors are evil at different levels at the same time. Now take the next step and recognize that fighting said evil also comes into many different levels of severity. It is not just either clear 100% win or do nothing and immediately resign without a fight. There are many intermediate levels of fight in between two maxima. For example as a small step, one can continue using and paying to LLM corpos, but at least avoid the worst one of them, which OAI objectively is today.
This is moral relativism at its finest, and just plain wrong. I'm not willing to go so far as to call Anthropic a good player, but they are surprisingly often willing to put their money where their mouth is. Obviously everything can be interpreted as a PR move as well, but we just lack context to know true intentions. Personally I have repeatedly sold being a good org as a PR move, it is the easiest way to do good in a capitalist environment. The success of such a sales pitch significantly relies on the moral values (or lack thereof) of the other decision makers at the company.
With Project Glasswing for example, I'm impressed at how generally well thought out it is, and very much appreciate that they donate a lot of money to OSS. I would have liked them to extend the Project to smaller players as well, but power centralisation is an inherent problem of AI, not something that is unique to Anthropic.
There are varying degrees of evil though. Saying that Anthropic and OpenAI are both "evil" to the same degree is disingenuous (in my opinion) given Altman's sociopathic behavior.
All AI players are 50 shades of evil and are only concerned about their profits.
Instead of virtue signaling it's best to use the tools that work best for your needs.