My sixth grade 'safety patrol' volunteer group had a member who was very popular in school, but didn't do his 'shift' on the cross walk three times and was thus eligible for expulsion. Clear fact, clear rule, but a lot of people in the group didn't want to believe that the group tolerated incompetence in order to share popularity, and so many attacks were made on the methodology of taking attendance, scheduling shifts, and the definitions of responsibilities. As the 'weird' guy in the group it made perfect sense to me, here is a rule, here is a consequence, rule gets broken, consequence gets enacted. Picked up a lot of flack for that point of view.
So here we have someone who describes an experience she had a place that considers itself hip, cool, and generally superior to other places one might work. Her experience, and more importantly her interpretation of the experience, if accepted as true, reflects badly on that place. If you still work at that place, or hold it in high esteem, you have three choices:
1) Shoot the messenger - most common response seems to be this one, shoot the bearer of bad news and you can pretend bad news doesn't exist.
2) Shoot the process - this is where people who recognize that their first instinct is to shoot the messenger but are 'above all that' and yet do not reconcile the information with their own view of the world, attack the transmission channel and accuse the channel of being broken, biased, or both.
3) Hear the message, understand the brokeness it represents, and seek out ways to figure out where the system is broken and to fix it. Of course that doesn't necessarily involve a response directly to the channel so observers outside the conversation may not see the results at all.
This community is pretty small relative to the overall community of technologists, and it has some biases with respect to places, people, and concepts. I believe you are simply seeing one of those biases emerge as a side effect of the conversation.