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)
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.