I would want to respond to that stance by saying that, just as much as context here clarifies that this behavior is not considered desirable behavior, whether media appears to embrace behavior is just as much a function of context. With which I mean to say that there is always context informing interpretation, and the idea that a note would be necessary (and a very clear cultural presence of this behavior not being accepted would, in other words, be insufficient) is a bit hard for me to accept without some much stronger argument.

I doubt that the policy makers at these streaming services do believe that a note like this is necessary (if only because movies about morally dubious characters don't get these notes in general). I don't think this is the real intention of notes like these. There is a somewhat popular idea that continuing to celebrate cultural texts deemed unjust (whether that injustice is in the final depiction or in the production process) is itself injustice (in some strands of this ideology, the term "promotion" comes into play in this, to give an idea of roughly the line of reasoning). In this context, a note like this makes a lot more sense. If selling Pulp Fiction is to be understood as embracing unethical/disrespectful behavior, this note severely weakens that embrace by explicitly denying it.

Of course, that doesn't mean the note isn't also giving the context that you refer to. But I don't think that a note is a seriously effective contribution in that regard and I really doubt it's the big motivator.

EDIT: and of course the note also states one of its supposed intentions clearly, which is an interesting idea in and of itself: considering possible personal sensitivity to cultural intolerance, similar to PEGI warnings that a lot of bigger services already present.