I disagree. The company needs to restore trust. An incorrect way to restore trust is to babble word-salad about feelings that don't exist in whatever business unit made this decision. A correct way to restore trust is to 1. rollback the decision (check) and 2. articulate and implement a plan of action so that it doesn't happen again (missing, and more important).
Trust is immensely valuable. They lost a trust fortune over night. No amount of posturing or PR babble can fix that, and accepting PR babble as trust currency is deeply misguided when dealing with a corporation. A good-faith plan of action is something we can put some stock in.
> 2. articulate and implement a plan of action so that it doesn't happen again.
It seems to me like they did? The plan of action is articulated here:
"we’re going to fix them in a different way, and we’re going to work with you to come up with the specifics, as we should have done the first time around."
And it is implemented here:
"If you haven’t sent us a note yet, or if you don’t see your concerns listed above, please leave us your feedback here[LINK]."
(And of course part of the implementation is actually listening to the feedback in the future.)
I understand that you don't find this satisfactory. However, I don't know what you would find satisfactory. What would a response that legitimately addressed #2 look like, concretely? Could someone give an example response?
EDIT: Ah, you say elsewhere that the people involved in the decision should be "replaced, retrained, or otherwise required to alter their behavior". Do you want Patreon's press release to say, e.g., that people were fired/demoted/retrained as a result of the decision? If so, you should have said so!
Trust is immensely valuable. They lost a trust fortune over night. No amount of posturing or PR babble can fix that, and accepting PR babble as trust currency is deeply misguided when dealing with a corporation. A good-faith plan of action is something we can put some stock in.