"Until you give me proof someone's planning to break into my house, I'm going to treat normal precautions such as locking my front door as paranoia and I have common sense and factual research for saying that" isn't really making a clever / "edgy" argument, it's just a false equivalence / stunning display of naivety. It's obvious you've never had to do a proper security audit for a major company as the burden of proof for security is very much on the software vendor to prove that it's clean, not the user to prove that it's dirty after waiting until the horse has bolted. Basic security precautions
by definition involve being cautious without waiting for "proof" of anything.
Not being able to prove a closed source OS is doing something nefarious through an encrypted undesired back-channel that can't be disabled simply results in an honest "unknown", not a laughably dishonest
"it's clean because that's what I want to believe and anyone who disagrees is a conspiracy theorist" followed up by the usual stream of "Appeal to Ridicule" logical fallacy non-arguments.
So to answer your question, "banging on W10" is simply asking hard questions in the face of lack of tangible transparency by a
company who was literally first in line with 'involuntary mass data harvesting on behalf of another party' (for which the threshold of transparency for many is going to be far more than a doe-eyed
"A PR guy told me what I wanted to hear. Case closed.")
