I had a similar thought. I worked for a truly evil (management-wise; the engineers and PMs are fine) startup in the winter of 2011-12 and I've been debating whether to name-and-shame. The ethical problem I have with it is that, while I could easily kill the company (publicity-wise, but that would be enough) it would be low-level engineers who get fucked and the shitbag managers would probably bounce along fine. That's why I haven't done it. (After embarrassing a less-deserving company whose name starts with G, I'm more hesitant about public whistleblowing.)
However, if I ever end up in financial hardship I can't get out of, I'm going to start a Yes and a No project (maybe on Kickstarter, if they don't mind?) If "Yes" raises more money, then I name the evil startup that inspired my hatred of VC-istan, and out its scumbag executives in excruciating detail (including stuff about their families that I found later on). If "No" wins, then I keep it a secret. (Obviously, the losing side gets back their money.) I'd probably have to preclude the company itself, and its managers, from funding the "No", lest I get an extortion rap.
This could be a brilliant or fucked-up-evil startup idea. People who are cash-strapped and need to raise money take issues in their lives from the mundane ("should I sell my furniture?") to the important ("should I go back to school?") to the extreme ("should I out my scumbag ex-manager?") into the public and set up Yes/No races. On one hand, it would help a lot of people. On the other hand, it'd be hard to set it up so it doesn't become a vehicle for extortion.