The article didn't claim that the study's conclusion was false. The article only points out that the study was flawed, and therefore cannot be relied upon to draw any conclusions either way. The article is about replication issues in modern science, not about whether people in uniforms can be mean to people.
Not "flawed", fraud. Which is a claim that the conclusion is false--and that the author knew it and published it anyway. That's what "fraud" means in this context. That's an extremely strong claim, which the article does not actually justify. Zimbardo's response, which others upthread have posted a link to, is, IMO, required reading to evaluate anything this article says.
Yeah, exactly. This type of real-world experiment is being done inside corporations and other bureaucratic fiefdoms.
I think there's some truth to our order-following, obedient nature but people also seemed to put way too much stock into this particular study. It's just one study.
Quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur (aka Hitchens' Razor)