Words like malice and evil require intent. If we don't want the conversation to be about intent, we should use words like amoral. Facebook isn't actively trying to harm their customers, they simply don't care about them. That is amoral not evil.
Don't bend yourself out of shape. Actively, happily ignoring the evil you have caused and continue to cause is evil.
You can call Facebook a number of things from amoral to negligent or even criminal, but once you start talking about evilness you have to start judging their intentions and motives.
All of these things are no one's fault.
> Evil isn't about results. It is about intent and motive.
Exactly. Prioritizing profit at the cost of customers' well-being is a deliberate decision; if not, seeing that customers are harmed by your own, continued actions and doing nothing to change it is, to me, actively being evil. Your intent may not be exactly to harm, but you have no problem harming people to get there. There is no difference.
While I agree that it's useful to maintain some nuance in our perspectives, generally I think it's better to recognize and realign our actions, not definitions. It's the difference between accidentally hitting someone, and accidentally hitting someone and proceeding to run them over.
And to your example, I think we know most people aren't really aware of what is going on. Another group of people don't believe it at all, a combination of ignorance and poor government. We're all human; that means something.
Mark isn't trying to kill people. Mark _is_ evil, because he chooses to take actions that are likely to cause great harm.
No, but you would call it evil if someone repeatedly built rickety buildings in a hurricane zone or built structures out of dry wood and paper next to a forest at high risk for a forest fire, and then acted like they had no responsibility when the buildings repeatedly got destroyed by fires and hurricanes and people's personal property got lost forever or looted in the resulting disorder.
That's ridiculous, neither hurricanes nor fire possess free will. I bet you would call someone who intentionally starts those things evil, though
Unless you're an animist, I guess.
Trying to fit things into neat little boxes so you can apply words to them isn't particularly helpful. What Facebook is doing is some form of wrong. They aren't murdering children, but still, what they are doing is not good and they are doing it at a massive scale, so the harm is multiplied.