>Ask yourself why you consider it right to shame them by name, when OP did not consider it right to do so. [...] , The other possibility that you didn't seem t

>Ask yourself why you consider it right to shame them by name, when OP did not consider it right to do so. [...] , The other possibility that you didn't seem to consider is that the author (Rachel Kroll) is withholding the website's name to protect herself and not the company. If she only heard about the company's video deletion via second hand information, she'd understandably be hesitant to name the company in her blog. The person telling her the story may have not gotten the facts exactly right. >and without doxxing them. If a user can factually state that <RealName> cooking website deleted videos, that's not "doxxing" the company. That's a very peculiar word to use and it doesn't apply to this situation. If someone factually states that the MS Windows 10 upgrade deletes users' files, that's not "doxxing Microsoft".