There is nothing wrong with well-implemented telemetry. It's an extremely valuable tool for improving software quality. I don't understand the antipathy some people have for it.
If you don't understand something that most people have an agreed viewpoint on you might want to spend some time reflecting.
Reflecting on what? I never see any well-reasoned arguments against telemetry. It's just "any data collected for any purpose must be EVIL".
I'm not strongly against telemetry, but I previously wrote a comment explaining why I question the need for it (which was a source of cognitive dissonance given my employer at the time): https://lobste.rs/s/htbkqd/console_do_not_track#c_hqev1u
I worked for Mozilla over a period during which we went to having no telemetry to good telemetry and the benefits for quality were huge, especially for crashes. Without crash telemetry you simply have to guess which bugs are the most important to fix first. With telemetry you know. This is especially important when a bug suddenly shows up in the field, e.g. some antivirus vendor ships an update that breaks your product. Diverse teams are good but you are never going to have a team that truly represents the experiences of non-technical people.