They're referencing what the second protester (Vaniya Agrawal) mentioned in her email:

Know that Microsoft’s human rights statement prohibits retaliation against anyone who raises a human rights-related concern: Human rights statement | Microsoft CSR

The Microsoft Global Human Rights Statement has a "Foundational principles" section that says:

Our commitment to human rights defenders: Our commitment to respecting and advancing human rights includes respect and support for the work of human rights defenders around the world. Human rights defenders are people who, individually or with others, engage in activities and advocacy that contribute to the protection of human rights and the rule of law, good governance, tolerance, and diversity and inclusion. Human rights defenders face persistent physical, social, economic, and psychological threats. Microsoft does not tolerate threats, intimidation, retaliation, physical, legal or cyber-attacks against human rights defenders. This commitment extends to all human rights defenders, including those working on issues related to Microsoft and those exercising their rights of freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, including to challenge or protest aspects of our own business.

Microsoft is clearly declining to fulfill its commitment as it is written in its statement.

Definitely not using or recommending Zorin OS after this. I don't appreciate Brave's integrated cryptocurrency bloatware or the fact that Brave was founded as a competitor to Firefox by a homophobe who was ousted from Mozilla for his anti-LGBT political contributions.

Exactly. Some of these vigilantes are using this act as a cover to conduct violence against LGBT people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_grooming_conspiracy_theory

Same flawed logic the Russian Orthodox Church used to support Russia's invasion of Ukraine

As written in 411 BCE by Aristophanes as Lysistrata

Kevin Rose (Digg founder) and Alexis Ohanian (Reddit co-founder) just acquired Digg together, so we'll have to see how it goes. But I don't need to wait for Digg to resurrect itself when Lemmy is already right here.

The court that you conjured up to justify your use of a rumor that would inadmissable as evidence. Grimes isn't testifying since she made no comment. In fact, there's nothing to indicate that she is even aware of the rumor.

Your tedious arguments all stem from your failure to recognize that just because someone said something on social media doesn't mean it's credible, even if the people the rumor is about didn't bother to acknowledge it.

Obviously, "I heard he had a penis implant" does not qualify for these exemptions.

Since you're quoting legal definitions, you should learn that rumors are hearsay, and hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.

Unsubstantiated gossip from a habitual liar is not evidence. Saying "yes it is" however firmly will not change that fact.

Yes, I distrust claims from people who are untrustworthy, including Elon Musk and Azealia Banks. You should too.

Azealia Banks saying something on Twitter is not "evidence".

I don't trust known liars like Elon Musk or Azealia Banks, so don't put words in my mouth. You taking gossip from a "random singer" seriously because Grimes ignored it is a "genius position", hope it works out for you.