Sure, if you've got a concept of morality based on primarily being motivated to help others rather than pursuing self interest. If that's the case though then the vast majority of people would fall under the category and make it a pretty meaningless description.
> if you've got a concept of morality based on primarily being motivated to help others
Ethically, self-interest is fine. Failing to help others isn't a huge deal either. It's the part where you're actively and deliberately harming others (by polluting search results - impairing both search engines, as a company, and their users) that we're objecting to.
I think the idea of "polluting search results" requires too much of a subjective concept of what good content is to say whether producing one kind or not is unethical. They aren't producing what they are because people aren't looking at it and I'm very sceptical of any notion that people don't generally do what they want. It has a very centrally planned feel to say "people want think pieces" or "people want to read about X" when reality shows that people want easily consumed clickbait and listicles.
What you wrote is a very twisted rationalization of screwing people on purpose. Sure, if you create several things and watch which ones people like more, you can say that those people do what they want. But when you start purposefully designing tricks to e.g. advertise you have information, and then sell them ads and bullshit, you're doing active harm to people. It's not subjective at all.
I assure you I don't need to rationalise. I'm under no delusion that I'm a terrific person and do the assorted immoral things I do with full understanding and acceptance.
Demand Media has strong brands. They aren't anonymous/fly by night operators. If they were promising content and not delivering with any sort of regularity they'd lose viewers. They're not doing that though. The content when you click on an ehow or livestrong article is exactly what you'd expect from an ehow or livestrong article. That you find this content undesirable is very much subjective. Plenty of people seem to enjoy it.
People generally do what they want to do, but they base their decisions on incomplete information on what they are going to get. Lots of crap wouldn't get its clicks if it didn't appear to be something it isn't.
Their crap is what it appears to be though. If they weren't delivering on their clickbaity titles then people would soon learn. It's not like they're anonymous publishers, sites like ehow and livestrong are strong brands. They're not counting on unaware users.
Humans are social animals and the "self" at least partially includes your community. There's no need to make such a fine distinction when discussing human morality.
