THE idea that some people are "obsessed" with Microsoft is a myth, one that's mostly peddled by the subject of criticism. It stigmatises the critics as having something chronic and irrational. The retroactively reactive, responsive, reactionary distrust of Microsoft is very well earned. Each week we see another new story about victims of Microsoft, even people who merely attempted to enhance Windows in some way (but Microsoft did not control that enhancement, so that's a 'problem'). New example here.

"Each week we see another new story about victims of Microsoft, even people who merely attempted to enhance Windows in some way (but Microsoft did not control that enhancement, so that's a 'problem')."A very long time ago in another context (EPO) we published a number of articles about sociopaths, lack of empathy, greed and nihilism. Those problems if not mental conditions very well characterise the leadership of Microsoft; this has been mostly true since the company's genesis (and since inception Bill Gates ran into many troubles with the law, even arrested). We kindly remind readers to not be shy and not be shamed into treating Microsoft as just another 'Big Tech' -- a club of many. We previously explained why 'Big Tech' or "GAFAM" or "GIAFAM" (some say "GAFA" as if to imply Microsoft is suddenly all wonderful!) misses the broader picture. I, personally, never bought anything from Apple or Amazon. I don't have a Facebook account, I don't use anything from Microsoft (the last version of Windows I had was Windows 98) and the only thing from Google that I use is Google News (less and less over time) because of Daily Links. No, I don't use Android or so-called 'phones'...

"Microsoft hasn't changed since the antitrust days; the regulators changed (or were ousted; bribery in politics plays a role too)."So "GAFAM" (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) hardly plays a role in my life, though most people I know feed lots of data into those companies. Heck, my employer sent a lot of data to AWS (which I oppose openly). The bottom line is, just because a number (perhaps a handful) of companies serve an imperialistic surveillance agenda doesn't mean they're all equal or similar. The danger posed by Facebook for example (a close ally of Microsoft by the way) is inherently different from some of the nefarious things Microsoft does. People out there who lash out at Microsoft are sometimes facing accusations along the lines of "whataboutism" (e.g. "but what about Google???") and it's a lousy old tactic which misses the point. Yes, Google is bad in a lot of ways, but that must not distract anyone from the horrible things Microsoft does every day. Microsoft hasn't changed since the antitrust days; the regulators changed (or were ousted; bribery in politics plays a role too). ⬆