And that's what people miss. It exists in every business and every culture. It's an unfortunate fact of life that there are some decisions you have to make where some group will have ill effects in order to benefit the larger organization / society / culture / group. It's a fallacy that in every scenario and every choice, everyone can benefit and no one suffer.
As leaders of companies, organizations, groups, societies, worlds - we look to minimize these choices and head them off as much as we can. Sometimes we succeed, but we can't always - no one human ever can. When we fail as we inevitably MUST, we will be forced to make that hard choice. To downsize a company, or lay off individuals, or stop creating a product that had a following, or stop making a TV series that people loved, or change a tax, or policy, or law. Such choices are never loved by everyone and never benefit everyone, and we are never liked for making these choices. But that doesn't change the facts of the world - a choice MUST be made.
In this case, the leadership team must suffer the righteous anger of some groups in order to protect the experience of other groups. There is never a GOOD choice in such a scenario, but inaction is also a choice and a doomed one. Personally, to me it's a good sign that someone in there is willing to make the harder, hated choice of action compared to the easier and potentially more harmful choice of inaction. And again, it sucks there has to be a choice. But the fact that the choice sucks doesn't change anything.
Sorry. I will get off my soap-box. It's been a tough week.