Orygin

Personally, I don't give Microsoft the benefit of doubt. But technically I'm guessing they are not sending the audio data to their backend so no snooping there.
The rest of the meeting is free game however I'm pretty sure.

Except the entire use case for teams in our organization (and I'm sure many others) is basically just to chat and make calls. None of the extra stuff is useful to us.
Also you can look at slack which would also be a communications/collaboration platform, and weirdly enough the UX is fine and usable without training. Just admit MS shat the bed and made some Frankenstein abomination that no one knows how to use correctly. It's pretty typical of Microsoft (and apple too) to just deflect that the user is doing it wrong instead of admitting they could improve the experience.
To add to your RV analogy, Microsoft is selling an RV to moms and dads that just want to drop their kids to school. Sure sometimes they go on vacation and the RV is nice, but it's not what the user needs. It's also exactly why users hate it, they are given a monster truck just to go to the shop. (Plus in the case of software, they could have it transform as needed. The communication part could look like a regular sedan, but instead you are forced into the RV format at all times)

Is it really open source or just open weights ? Big difference

For the mic mute issue, I guess it's so they can show a little popup saying you are muted when they detect a signal coming in

Why would I need training for a chat app ?
I have (as many many others) have used other apps before with no training at all without issues. Teams requires it because its UX is atrocious

For Android tv there's also Smart tube next

Yeah I feel all this thread is just a knee jerk reaction because it's something tangential to veganism or something. The more I see this kind of topic brought up on Lemmy or elsewhere, the more I notice the immediate rejection of debate.
Even more staggering here when imo it's related to the topic at hand and not just spam in unrelated threads.

Wrong about what ? It being a genocide?
Is being semantically right the only thing that matters?
Even if we agree the term genocide is not correct, why would this point be irrelevant in a discussion about lawfulness and morality?
Edit: Thinking about, it would be more akin to slavery, but that's still very much in line with the op

I think that's a bit pedantic. When talking about the genocide of animals it's generally in the context of their suffering, not in the context of climate change.
Killing them by itself is not "bad" for the climate, but having too many of them and having them take up loads of resources is.
Plus there may not be extinction because we keep breeding them, but the number of animals slaughtered every year would put the Holocaust to shame if we held animals into higher regard than currently (hence this topic being brought up)

Can you cite where they mentioned that ? Either it's in another post or they did not. They explicitly talk about genocide, so probably more about animal rights than climate action.

Who brought up climate change ?

I don't see how it's a rebuttal. And in my mind he got the same reaction people would give in "those times" when somebody mentioned that slavery or segregation is bad.
"Yeah sure the Holocaust was bad but this is whataboutism, it isn't on topic, we're not talking about slavery here" has the same vibe as your post.
Sure I can understand the topic being the USA going fascist mode, but it's not obvious and the topic of the image is literally "things can be legal and immoral". Imo (and I hope) that animal rights will be seen some day as the fourth example in this image. Without people getting attention to it, nothing will change. And instead of talking about it, it's shut down.
He's not derailing the entire post, he has posted an opinion that goes in the same direction as the op and he's being chastised because it doesn't align with your views.
If you just want to discuss authoritarianism more than the moral/ethics aspect of it, you're welcome to. But to say that this doesn't have its place here is wrong imho.

Btw sorry for the ad hominem, but it's grand coming from you when you directly compared the guy to an incel because he expressed an opinion. (Plus that section was clearly sarcastic so if you take offense from this... Well..)