I do not believe that some people mean mal intend, and so my original question was in which framework this would no be mal intend.
(My heart are with the anti nuclear protestors who's work is being reinterpreted to have ruined the earth these years, despite them doing what they believe was right)
Microsoft has been criticised (and even sued) for these practices for years. At a certain point you have to accept they are doing it on purpose. Anyone inside the company who decides on or implements these features and is genuinely surprised by the backlash is either unbelievably naive or unbearably incompetent. It’s been going on for too long for plausible deniability.
But that also is proof for the abstract! By having this image, MS preselects on engineers with lower ethical standards.
Thus it’s no longer abstract but specific to Microsoft, which is my point. In general we shouldn’t assume malice right of the bat. But the situation changes when we’re talking specifically about an entity with a history of being malicious (however we define that for each case).
> A person familiar with the kerfuffle who has visibility into the Windows giant, though who did not want to be identified, told us it appears that "if a user chose continuous import in the Edge first run experience on some other device, this state may be syncing incorrectly across their devices. This is not the intended feature experience." We're assured that Microsoft is addressing it for the next Edge Stable release.