I don't think this is correct. At least this is not a definition of evolution that I've ever seen reproduced. If anything, biologists I've read point to views such as this a misconception which must be corrected.
Dawkins is mostly talking about evolution and creationism in "The Blind Watchmaker," (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker) but I think it applies here as well: evolution is not guided, and there is no progress in the human sense of the word. ie, people are not "more evolved" than our ancestors. We have different adaptations which might be better (or worse) suited for certain evolutionary challenges. If the evolutionary pressures lined up properly, we could easily evolve to be more similar to other mammals. (ie, some people would call that "devolve.")
What is the shape of evolution? Many believe the shape of evolution to be a line of deterministic "progress" with a forward and a backward movement that may be accelerated.
Maybe evolution is a process which we are unconsciously subject to and consciously participate in forming. It seems directors, managers, and other employees working for Facebook may be more conscious of the role the Facebook systems play in social, psychological, and evolutionary processes, and the outcomes the systems grow.