Well this is the whole point of the "teaming" technique in politics, isn't it?
Don't have individual views on individual issues: you're in my team now, and I'm telling you the team position on this new unrelated issue, so you're to have this position.
Teaming isn't new – I remember well a Northern Ireland friend telling me joking-but-not-joking that they hadn't needed to think about their position on abortion: Catholics were anti-abortion, therefore (Protestant) friend was pro-choice.
But teaming has been turbo-charged by algorithm-controlled internet feeds: "if you liked that, then watch this next."
(Of course the algorithms don't just feed you more of the same; often they bombard you with the exact opposite in order to try to change your position.)
This may be accompanied by Twitter-storms designed to apply pressure.
So what's going on here is a consequence of teaming. Duffield has retained her independent thoughts on the issue of US federal agents murdering people in the street – but doesn't want to upset the team. She may continue to resist the team pressure, or cave and change her position.