I agree with your point in general, but in this case all we have to go on is Rachel's account of what happened, which was posted to illustrate a particular poin

I agree with your point in general, but in this case all we have to go on is Rachel's account of what happened, which was posted to illustrate a particular point and is probably missing important context. I'm not saying the company isn't deserving of a public shaming, I'm just saying we don't know if it is deserving of a public shaming because all we have to go on is one person's humorous/scary anecdote with "some details changed". Posting the company's name at this point seems premature.