I would obey it, but passive-aggressively go against it.
The main reason for my above answer is because of the subjective nature of what “immoral” is for each individual. Some of the people posting here are going under the assumption that they know what “immoral” is in its most basic nature when applied to abstract concepts. There’s always the off-chance you’re the one that’s mistaken, in a sense.
Compare it to a child’s understanding of the world. If a child were to hypothetically come across a website about the culling of animals, they would most likely label it as “bad” and leave it as that. An adult would read into it further and find out the reasons for the culling (most-likely classifying it as bad, but necessary). In this scenario, the child would be ignorant of facts that would prove them wrong in their assessment of the website and “animal-culling” in general. And I mean “wrong” in a general sense.
Basically, I’m just going for the best worst-case scenario (preparing for the fact that i’m wrong, but still going against it in some way).
In some cases, the things you find immoral are the things that are necessary when looking at the context. (E.g. An anti-deforestation protestor would be against the cutting down of trees in an area, but the local rural community would need the wood to build houses and shelters, etc.)
There are also times when both parties are right and wrong, so it all boils down to which side is more right, which is something that is debatable in itself (thesis>antithesis>synthesis>thesis, etc.).
Honestly, it’s for this reason that I avoid arguing—there’s always so much uncertainty.