The question was not whether or not an employer should continue to pay a person.
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.
Oh, so it'd be ok if the "angry internet person" hust happened to be the PM's boss, noticed this abomination & fired them?
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.
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?
[1] http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/serendipia/Stupidity.html