They didn't fucking support it - they rejected and suggested revision and a resubmit. It's a philosophy journal - none of these are suggested directions of action, they're philosophical thought experiments. It's right there in the title. Stop being disingenuous.
Before anything like this was even considered to be implemented it would have to go through departmental reviews and cross examination by other disciplines and then go through an ethics committee. Of which it wouldn't get past any - because it's never intended to.
These are the same types of journals where philosophers argue if tables actually exist at all. And this one, Hypatia, has a laughably low IF of 0.72 (on a scale of 0-10).
Now that's out the way some other points.
They specifically picked a field where there are only 42 journals listed on the JCR - and of those that accepted their papers only 4 of them are even listed on the JCR - the other 3 literally don't have IF rankings. They've claimed that "bogus scholarship is reaching into sociology" and yet the 3 papers they submitted to journals identified in the JCR as being in the field of sociology were flatly rejected, not even making it to peer review stage. This leads us to their lack of a control - they've picked a small field of study and chosen not to submit similar "experiments" to other fields (for example economics or physics). They can certainly say that poor scholarship exists, but they can't say that it is limited to this field (or even humanities in general) because they've cherry picked their target and don't have a control.
Despite all this I still think this type of activity is healthy for fields.