That's a really bad and useless definition of evil, and we should have figured that out a long time ago. Can't just say "we were following orders," or "that's just business."

And no, I can't give you a clear brightline test right now to determine this. It takes homework.

But.

If you want to A/B test whether people prefer blue chewing-gum to green, be my guest.

If you want to A/B test for literal depression and sell stuff to people based on that, you're probably evil.

The line's somewhere in between there. Now we know where Meta has chosen to go on some of this; and again, this is from WHAT IS KNOWN TO BE PUBLIC.

The safest thing is to assume the worst, then. May they rot.

Thanks for the clarification, specifically the examples. I agree with the spirit of your conclusion, but it's far outside my expertise (psychology) and experience (haven't used FB since about 2012).

"They" is unnecessarily vague I guess. It's not fair to write off the entire population of Facebook staff... There are surely a substantial chunk of employees who were entirely unaware of these tactics.

It's easy to claim an organization is evil. Less so for individuals, and with good reason. There's something to be said for remembering to humanize people, even those most "undeserving."

But it doesn't have to be outside of your expertise to criticize it anyway, that's the point I want to make.

There is no harm in me saying out loud "Facebook is an evil company" even if I'm completely wrong, because they are so powerful. It would valuable for everyone to scream at Facebook at being evil because that would force them to show and prove that they are not.

We shouldn't get stuck on being "accurate." Throwing rocks is not just okay, it's a good idea if it forces the powerful party to act/respond.

As for the individuals -- it's their job to defend the company. If that hurts their feelings or whatever, too bad. I don't care and neither should you (presuming that Facebook is potentially very harmful.)

> Aren't advertisements at their core unconsented psychological manipulation?

Yes. 100% yes.

> What about retail store design?

Also yes.

Advertising exists to try and make you purchase product “x”, regardless of whether you need it, or it meets your requirements. Even “harmless” display advertising exists to gently push to mind into forming the desired emotional association with a product.

Store layouts are well documented for being deliberately anti-efficient: they make you walk past everything else to find the things you need, with the goal of exposing you to more advertising and product placement. Combine that with strategies like putting sweets and other “low friction” products at the checkout, where you’re more likely to make a spur of the moment emotional decision under pressure, or be hassled by your children for sweets, and you have something that is inherently exploitative and morally questionable at a minimum.

Evil is probably too high-modality, but unethical and exploitative are definitely suitable.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you were kind enough to share. You even elaborate on the things which I was to lazy to expand on myself. So I think we're on the same page.

I only took issue with the choice of "evil" because I am working on curbing my own hyperbole and sweeping generalizations.

I don't care much what the word (or any word) means, I care what it does.

Nothing wrong with calling "Facebook" evil. It's not a person, it's an artificial entity. It can take it. (I too would be more reluctant when it comes to people)