<Tin foil hat on> Microsoft doesn't want to allow software that would allow the user to shield themselves, either by totally encrypting a drive, or by encrypting their network traffic! </Tin foil hat on>
I don't think Microsoft cares (about anything besides making mo' money), but there are plenty of (state) actors that can influence the decision-making at Microsoft when it comes to these issues.
No tinfoil needed.
That's what Big Tinfoil wants you to believe!
https://www.tiktok.com/@etong_winter_palikir/video/739554877...
Microsoft the corporation may only care about making money, but a lot of very high ranking folks within MS Security aren't just friendly to intelligence agencies, they take genuine pride in helping intelligence agencies. They're the kinds of people who saw nothing wrong or objectionable with PRISM whatsoever, they were just mad they got caught, and that the end user (who they believe had no right to even know about it) found out anyway. The kind of people who openly defend the legitimacy of the FISA court.
This aren't baseless accusations, this comes from first-hand experience interacting with and talking to several of them. Charlie Bell literally kept a CIA mug on a shelf behind him, prominently visible during Teams calls, as if to brag.
Remember - Microsoft was the very first company on the NSA's own internal slide deck depicting a timeline of PRISM collection capabilities by platform, started all the way back in 2007. All companies on that slide may have been compelled to assist with national security letters. Some were just more eager than others to betray the privacy and trust of their own customers and end-users.
I was always convinced that Skype was bought by microsoft so CIA/US intelligence agencies to have listening capabilities.
The first thing Microsoft did after the Skype purchase was making it easier to tap into the calls by removing p2p calling and routing calls using centralized servers.
The catch is, views like those must be kept to a fairly modest level by the people who hold them. Discussing them with ideologically aligned colleagues may be fine, but for example, when someone makes statements or asks questions with such pro-privacy framing on stage directly to security leadership at internal company conferences, that is a quick way to a severance package not only for the person on stage, but also for dozens of folks in the audience who clapped a little too enthusiastically at the onstage remarks.
If Microsoft amounts to a sentient entity (i.e. is able to care about things), we have a bigger problem.
If we put the wall of metaphor between us and that interpretation, it still remains likely that "users shielding themselves" is of primary concern to Microsoft's bottom line.
At least it reached its goal if it entertained you
It also reminds me of the case of the entire family who lost all of their payment-linked individual accounts including business data and an academic dissertation because the son allegedly behaved inappropriately with a bot. Collective punishment on top of technofeudal instant banishment.