Is this intentional devils advocacy for the sake of balancing an expected narrative? Outside of the rarely normative definition threshold as to what constitutes spyware or not, on what data / references (if any) do you base your impression on?
And how does a perception of company trustworthiness correlate with telemetry ethics that don't infringe in some way on 'basic digital human rights' (as defined by GDPR et al, say)?
Yes, because there are many people on this site who also believe a packet being sent to microsoft = spying. A lot of these people grew up with or were influenced by people who grew before the prevelance of the internet when software engineering was still immature when programs typically didn't communicate with the internet on their own.
>do you base your impression on?
My impression is based off the employees who work there who I would trust wouldn't add things like taking webcam screenshots and sending them back to Microsoft to look at.
>how does a perception of company trustworthiness correlate with telemetry ethics
Consumers and businesses will lose trust in a business if the telemetry data is not anonymized properly and put under strict privacy controls.
Overton window calculation usually starts at a minimum of two inputs without proximity requirements (except technical requirements like linguistics/ functional semantics)*
[ * Only because an opinion may appear too far removed from a given perceived spectrum-threshold for 'reasonable reasoning'.. should not necessitate collapsing the contrasting input to some purely sarcastic/humorous telos, especially when this stochastically undermines one's own chances for being afforded the inversely congruent gesture]
And how does a perception of company trustworthiness correlate with telemetry ethics that don't infringe in some way on 'basic digital human rights' (as defined by GDPR et al, say)?