Yes you can, but it's a spectrum. Microsoft abusing their monopolistic position to strangle competition and adding adware and spyware in an OS people pay for is ethically and morally bad, but is much less bad than Facebook profiting from and doing nothing to stop an actual active genocide. Facebook is by far the worst, ethically and morally, offender of the big tech companies not actively involved in the military industrial complex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
(should also help to obtain the historic criticism of it that has materialized since back then)
It's important to assign some responsibility to those who have/had the ability to prevent it, but it's not clear to me that FB could have prevented it.
In close races like the US presidential election it's plausible that FB was the deciding factor, but places where genocides happen are not known for close races.
That second question is much more painful to ask if you’re an engineer at a company like this, because it means there’s no changing it from within.
Facebook is designed fundamentally to be a social graph, a representation of people's lives, blablabla. the more time people spend representing their lives on FB, the more attached they are to their online persona/profile/connections (and the dopamine rewards through likes and engagement), the more money it makes.
misinformation bubble? who cares. if that is what people want to represent, FB provides it, sure, but it's not what it is designed for.
You can make a negative case for any of the large tech company.