No one is critiquing Daniela’s personal life though, they’re critiquing  something about her public life (ie her voluntary public statements to journalists) for contradicting what she’s said in her personal life. Compare this with a common reason people get cancelled where the critique is that there’s something bad in their personal life, and people are disappointed that the personal life doesn’t reflect the public persona- in this case it’s the other way around.

Hi Mikhael, could you clarify what this means? “It is known that they said words they didn't hold while hiring people”

If you look at ACE’s response, Column W was never meant to be shown in the public version - they dropped the ball by forgetting to follow their standard processes for redacting things at charities’ requests for confidentiality reasons - and the recent deletion was an action they took, not Sinergia. 

you can just look at the talk page to see people are leaning this way

Some people are, but I’d say that the overall vibe of that thread is leaning against until at least when it stops being a live issue

“JBS published in 2023 the commitment to banning ear notching by 2023” is a really clunky way of saying two things about the same year (ie I’d expect “by the end of the year” or something, instead of “by 2023”), how sure are you the 2nd 2023 couldn’t be a typo?

the fact you mention it suggests it's significant to you

This seems like quite a stretch.

What other disciplines would you want to see?

It seems appropriate for a quick take imo 

Do we know they are being actually deleted, rather than just taken offline?

What further actions would Trump/Rubio need to take to properly execute the waiver?