There is no reason to prevent for-profit companies from achieving those goals especially increasing user satisfaction, but, the problem is do they use manipulation techniques or shady schemes to achieve that?
If that is true, then the word itself will become sinister. Instead of feeling better, the users are manipulated. This is obviously wrong, and we know there is antitrust toward big technology companies, and the reason is because they practise those things.
The thing is that every company, from a major one to a tiny food stall, all of them are trying to "manipulate" people so that they were buying their products. And those who are telling you about "manipulation techniques or shady schemes" are doing that too. They just want you to consume their product, information in that case. And it's natural, there's nothing wrong with that. You just can choose not listening to them, including the promotion from casinos. It's your choice.
We must take power or information imbalance into account, a small retail is obviously different from social media companies which hold and have many user data accounts, that include their own user's behavior and interests. Given that, the probability they manipulate effectively will surely be a contrast and distinct matter. It is not just a mare to attract users to use or buy products or services.
The choice to use or not to use is certainly given to the users, but digging deeper, a question arises whether they are aware of being "manipulated" or not. Or, Are they aware they are being heavily influenced or not. If we took the asymmetrical information and power to the matter, surely it is not a simple thing where everything is ethically just.