[sizzle]

I'd say anything that faces a user in a digital experience that utilizes cheap psychological or behavioral manipulation/UI obsfucation to benefit from their interaction in achieving a desired business metric/outcome in which a user may not have otherwise consented to/authorized said interaction had the user interface been written clearly in plain language (no jargon) and accessibly designed for the common lay person (user testing).

In design, everything is intentional and I fail to believe these cheap UI tricks were anything other than intended as designed by whoever designed it. Any seasoned UX designer worth their title knows if what they are designing removes their agency in deciding on how to act or if it feels icky or wrong in a manipulative sense.

[wastedhours]

But where do you draw the line between offering genuine convenience for the end user and UX tricks? Is underlining a link unethical because it's giving undue weight to highlight an action you want the user to notice? (I know, reductio ad absurdum, but I think it's valid to point out personal interpretation of ethics can be stretched beyond usefulness).

That's more of a rhetorical point - I don't believe most things related to "morality" can ever be as clear as black/white, ethical/unethical, and think it muddies waters to assert it does.

Considered design does not always exactly equal purer-than-pure ethical design.