Indeed, stop-loss orders are extremely dangerous and shouldn't be offered.

A stop-loss-limit is better in that it makes the potential consequence of a stop-loss more clear: You could set a stop loss limit order with a limit of $0 to create a standard stop loss-- making it explicit that you're willing to potentially sell the asset for $0/share: which is what a stop loss is willing to do. (+/- market circuit breakers, which generally don't exist in cryptocurrency markets.)

If it's not immediately apparent why stop losses are a hazard: When markets are volitile the supply of standing orders near the spread tends to thin out-- for some assets, like the worthless magic beans FTX and friends specialized in owning, the markets are never particularly thick. What a stop loss order will do is once the market ticks below your threshold it will dump into a market order. Market prices are not continuous. If someone sold at $100 that doesn't mean you can sell at $100-- a market sale might be at $80-- locking in a substantial loss that otherwise would have been a momentary blip and never impacted you. These orders essentially automate one of the worst practices of inexperienced investors that result in loss: panicking at every dip and selling at a loss when nothing fundamental has changed.

What joe-sixpack thinks a stop loss will do is guarantee him a floor price. It will not. Joe could buy put contracts to create a guaranteed floor price but they cost money-- that cost is a direct sign of how much stop loss orders do not work.

A stop-loss-limit at $100/$100 would do what was expected if it executes but it usually won't execute except when the price dips and then recovers-- the case where you would have preferred to have your stop loss not exist at all. Seldom do people want a "Sell my stuff at $100/share if the price gets under $100 but only when it recovers"-- that would probably only be justifiable to the extent that the drop showed your thesis about the investment was wrong. Fundamentally the guarantee people want here can only be had at a price, and paying that price is a reasonable part of risk management.

If you're trading very small amounts of very liquid items on highly surveilled and regulated markets then perhaps you can get away with using them without getting too greatly burned. But at the same time puts for the same assets are usually fairly inexpensive. In the cryptocurrency sphere it's just not that unlikely that 'exchanges' (particularly bucket shops like FTX where the exchange is substantially the counterparty in the activity) has some script that counts up all the users stop loss orders and figures out how much profit they could make causing a momentary blip in the trading price just to trigger them. There are plenty of people in the industry that don't believe it would be unlawful to do so, seeing as how the traded assets aren't securities.

(and IIRC long before FTX's collapse there was a lawsuit alleging that they engaged in that kind of manipulation)

So mocking the stop loss comment seems a bit misplaced, but it's worth noting that the question was really about risk management and she didn't give a useful answer to the intended question either-- especially since the rubbish they owned was hard to impossible to risk manage and for good reason.