The article is a swipe at evil silicon valley corporations who hide their products' lack of value behind fancy advertisements; but are consumers with freedom to choose not responsible for their choices?
In the middle, you have a wide array of relationships. Is Coca-Cola to blame for the obesity epidemic? Are gun companies to blame for suicides or mass shootings? Is Juicero to blame for customers being dumb shits?
I think when you answer different examples, you get a pattern: when a supplier is selling a negative/zero value product but induces demand by playing off human weakness, then they're doing something wrong.
Juicero is playing off human weakness (the wealthy tech nerds' desire to be "hip" and "fit") just like a a fashion company plays off human weakness (by creating unrealistic representations that it goads its customers into trying to reach).
I'm not sure I follow your fashion industry example. Assuming youre referring to weight, the so called unrealistic representations manufactured by the fashion industry do not cause customers to spend extra money on clothing, since customers simply won't fit into unreasonable sizes. And here, similarly, fashion companies provide a service of status signalling.
In any case, these are both examples of consumers failing to personally choose not to follow the herd. Additionally, corporations do not set standards in a vacuum, consumers create demand and vote with their wallets.