So, this PM decided to put into a production environment a feature that interrupts a customer's workflow for no good benefit. It doesn't even benefit Microsoft, so he's not even being a bandit.
This is the very definition of stupid. Hurt the other guy, hurt yourself, for no benefit to either [1].
So, why would or should any employer continue to pay a person who performs such an obviously stupid action in a production environment to continue in the same position?
We may have a right to jobs if we continue to produce output that benefits the customers and employer, not simply because we continue to exist. Start harming your customers and/or employers, and why should you continue to receive their resources?
The question was whether or not some angry internet person should be responsible for the livelihood of a developer of a product they are having difficulty with.
Indeed, if more "angry internet people" (with good clear points like this one) actually provoked performance reviews, we might have better software.
Quit the sophistry. The guy had a real point and you're merely trying to make distracting noise.
An unrelated end user of a product should have no power over a persons work status just because they don't like the product.
> the greater good
subjectivity at its finest