> and this tool helps it

And that is bad.

> the abuse will have most likely already existed.

The abuse will get worse. The correct ethical answer to “the conditions are bad” is “improve the conditions” not “make them worse”.

picture this: corporate buys something (like O365), and is reluctant to end licensing for the bundle. So... if they're locked into a contract that includes management-abuse-as-a-service, enabling bad behaviors, do you think they'll back out of enabling that one abusive manager out of five? how will that impact the workforce?

Absolutely I expect it to be used to micromanage and abuse. Yes those behaviours already exist that’s why I know a tool that enables them will amphifly them

Maybe the implementation could include an option to show the worker's name.

>or perhaps they already would be doing that and this tool helps it?

Yes. I don't think we should ethically encourage the abuse of workers. And that official lens of marketing can and will shape who reaches out, even if the tool can indeed be used ethically. Framing is key.

As a tame example: think of the graphic design and marketing of red bull vs Monster. They have the same basic ingredients and purpose but that simple red bull design vs the in-your-face punk-esque vibe of Monster will change who buys it, how they identify with it, and even alter the perception of how it tastes.

The incentive is almost universally to micromanage and abuse employees. Reducing the friction will increase the incidence.