I'm all too surprised when people fall into ambiguity holes and give the benefit of doubt over these situations presuming there's some underlying candid motive

I'm all too surprised when people fall into ambiguity holes and give the benefit of doubt over these situations presuming there's some underlying candid motive or attribute ignorance (Hanlon's razor referenced far too often). A business saw an opportunity to make more money and took it. A large portion of consumer interests no longer aligned with their interests and we were caught in the crossfire. Fortunately, enough people shared the same concern that the risk for the business (Triplebtye) was now high enough that they had to mitigate fallout. That's all that happened and all that typically happens. Perhaps Triplebyte management didn't see the risk or misjudged the backlash and expected only a few users to complain. I find it hard to believe this side effect wasn't at least a considered risk brought to to table and ultimately ignored by management looking purely at growth. Yes, sometimes a shift in a business's goals cease to align with our interests and isn't necessarily meant to be malignant move against us directly, but there is certainly no concern for us in the process unless it is ultimately perceived as more net profitable. This is why we should be quite careful as to what we allow business ownership over/access to and remember that profit seeking cost optimizations are only useful to us while they're aligned with our interests. Whatever behaviors we allow businesses to pursue without enough repercussion to care, they will pursue seeking profit: a proverbial "cost of doing business." When a business's profit seeking interests are misaligned with ours or run counter opposite to our interests, we're in for a fight against a resource heavy entity we're likely lose, especially when certain behaviors are allowed to normalize across entire industries and accepted by culture in large segments.