I disagree because the fundamental core of this argument is "everyone in a community should think alike". That isn't realistic, and using that as a principle leads to bad results - we have to be used to having robust communities with questionable leadership. The natural state of leadership is to be a bit shabby and not quite up to the task. We have the internet now, we have great visibility on what leaders actually do and they can't meet impossible standards. Although that is why decentralisation is so powerful - WOTC doesn't run your games night and doesn't send out a goon squad to police that people aren't using house rules.

WOTC don't have the same incentives as their community. A company producing a game almost never has the same incentives as their community. As long as their incentives align with folding in the face of solid negative feedback, that is enough.

They made a mistake, they appear to have recognised the mistake and course corrected. Asking for more than that is going to get less - it encourages lies and bad, blandness.