Ok, let’s assume (for the sake of argument) that everything is on the up-and-up, and Microsoft will behave in a completely equitable and user-friendly way with regard to this feature going forward
This is so fantastical that there’s no point in even having the hypothetical discussion about it.
You’re right, it’s fantastical, but it’s still worth talking about.
It’s worth talking about as it solidifies the argument more than just assuming your opponent is acting poorly. The argument of “Even if Microsoft is a saint, it’s still a bad idea. But we know Microsoft also has a history of data collection, spying, anti-patterns etc.” is a much stronger argument than the latter half on its own
You’re right, it’s fantastical, but it’s still worth talking about.
Is it though?
It’s a feature which is very clearly evil and of very little benefit to the user. Only a shit business like Microsoft would even attempt it, lie about it being secure, then make it “optional” (and we all know what that means) and it will still be an insecure mess when it’s done, sucking down resources from a machine I purchased for no benefit to myself.
The “feature” by it’s current definition can only be conceived of by a piece of shit organisation like Microsoft.
No need to separate the art from the artist in this case, as they are perfectly aligned.
