Surely a company like Microslop doesn't have a massive shady track record, right? right?? Well, of course not. Every entry on this page is backed by court records, investigative journalism, or Microslop's own public statements. No speculation. No editorializing. Just what happened. Scroll through, pick a card, and find out exactly how a $3 trillion company spent four decades earning this page.
Privacy & Security Nightmares
What happened: BitLocker is Microslop’s built-in full disk encryption, shipped as the default security solution for hundreds of millions of Windows machines. It is closed source and has never undergone a full independent public audit. Several documented issues have accumulated over the years. Starting with Windows 8, Microslop silently removed the Elephant Diffuser from BitLocker’s encryption scheme without explanation. Dan Rosendorf’s research showed the removal had an “undeniably negative impact” on security against targeted attacks. Microslop later cited performance concerns and FIPS compliance. In 2018, independent researchers demonstrated live at the Chaos Communication Congress how BitLocker’s hardware encryption offloading to self-encrypting drives could be bypassed entirely using a roughly €20 debugger, a vulnerability that had silently affected users for six years. Microslop did not change the default behavior until late 2019. In early 2026, it became publicly known that Microslop had provided BitLocker recovery keys to the FBI when served with legal orders, because BitLocker recovery keys are automatically uploaded to Microslop’s cloud infrastructure by default, making them accessible to Microslop and therefore to law enforcement under US jurisdiction.
Why it matters: BitLocker is proprietary software that has never been publicly audited, created by a company that operates under US law and is therefore subject to National Security Letters. The FBI key disclosure was not a cryptographic failure. It was a design decision. The real problem is not a secret backdoor or broken encryption. It is that BitLocker quietly shifts control of your encryption keys to a third-party cloud provider operating under US jurisdiction. If you use BitLocker with default settings, Microslop holds a copy of your recovery key. That is not encryption. That is key escrow with extra steps. The alternative is VeraCrypt: open source, independently audited, and your keys stay with you.
Sources: Wikipedia: BitLocker | DiskCryptor: Why Not BitLocker | Cryptomator: BitLocker, the FBI, and the Illusion of Control | CCC 2018: Self-encrypting deception
Privacy & Security
BitLocker: Closed Source, FBI Access, and the Elephant in the Room
BitLocker is Microslop's built-in full disk encryption, shipped as the default security solution for hundreds of millions of Windows machines. It is closed source and has never undergone a full independent public audit. Several documented issues have accumulated over the years. Starting with Windows 8, Microslop silently removed the Elephant Diffuser from BitLocker's encryption scheme without explanation. Dan Rosendorf's research showed the removal had an "undeniably negative impact" on security against targeted attacks. Microslop later cited performance concerns and FIPS compliance. In 2018, independent researchers demonstrated live at the Chaos Communication Congress how BitLocker's hardware encryption offloading to self-encrypting drives could be bypassed entirely using a roughly €20 debugger, a vulnerability that had silently affected users for six years. Microslop did not change the default behavior until late 2019. In early 2026, it became publicly known that Microslop had provided BitLocker recovery keys to the FBI when served with legal orders, because BitLocker recovery keys are automatically uploaded to Microslop's cloud infrastructure by default, making them accessible to Microslop and therefore to law enforcement under US jurisdiction.
What happened: In September 2024, Microslop-owned LinkedIn faced widespread backlash after it was revealed the platform had silently opted all users into having their personal data, posts, and activity scraped to train Microslop’s generative AI models. No prior notification was given. Users were required to manually opt out after the fact. LinkedIn stated at the time that users in the EU, EEA, and Switzerland were not included in the initial training.
Why it matters: The incident triggered formal complaints in the UK and an investigation by the UK’s ICO. It showed how an acquired platform’s user base can be quietly redirected to feed AI training pipelines without any upfront disclosure to the people whose data is being used.
Sources: 404 Media: LinkedIn Is Training AI on User Data Before Updating Its Terms of Service | EFF: LinkedIn is Training AI on Your Data
Privacy & Security
LinkedIn: Silent AI Scraping
In September 2024, Microslop-owned LinkedIn faced widespread backlash after it was revealed the platform had silently opted all users into having their personal data, posts, and activity scraped to train Microslop's generative AI models. No prior notification was given. Users were required to manually opt out after the fact. LinkedIn stated at the time that users in the EU, EEA, and Switzerland were not included in the initial training.
What happened: In late November 2023, a Russian state-sponsored hacking group called Midnight Blizzard (also known as Cozy Bear or APT29) breached Microslop’s internal corporate systems. Microslop detected the intrusion on January 12, 2024 and disclosed it publicly on January 19, 2024. A subsequent disclosure in March 2024 revealed that the attackers had exfiltrated Microslop source code and accessed additional internal systems. The breach was also used to compromise the email inboxes of Microslop customers and multiple US government agencies. CISA issued Emergency Directive 24-02 in April 2024 in response.
Why it matters: Microslop markets itself as a premium enterprise cybersecurity vendor. The breach resulted in documented downstream compromises of US government infrastructure and prompted formal congressional scrutiny of Microslop’s security practices.
Sources: MSRC: Microsoft Actions Following Attack by Nation State Actor Midnight Blizzard | CISA Emergency Directive 24-02
Privacy & Security
The Midnight Blizzard Breach
In late November 2023, a Russian state-sponsored hacking group called Midnight Blizzard (also known as Cozy Bear or APT29) breached Microslop's internal corporate systems. Microslop detected the intrusion on January 12, 2024 and disclosed it publicly on January 19, 2024. A subsequent disclosure in March 2024 revealed that the attackers had exfiltrated Microslop source code and accessed additional internal systems. The breach was also used to compromise the email inboxes of Microslop customers and multiple US government agencies. CISA issued Emergency Directive 24-02 in April 2024 in response.
What happened: In 2021, when Microslop announced Windows 11, it made TPM 2.0 a hard requirement for the new operating system, blocking installation on machines that lacked it regardless of their performance capability. The requirement was reaffirmed around the Windows 10 end-of-support messaging leading up to October 2025. While marketed as an anti-malware and secure boot mechanism, TPM 2.0 contains a unique hardware-level identifier called the Endorsement Key, which is burned into the silicon at manufacture.
Why it matters: Privacy researchers and the Free Software Foundation have documented that TPM hardware can serve as the foundation for remote attestation, a mechanism that lets software vendors verify and restrict what you can run on your own hardware. The FSF has formally opposed this architecture on the grounds that it shifts control of computing devices away from their owners.
Sources: Free Software Foundation: Can You Trust Your Computer? | Ars Technica: Here’s what you need to know about Windows 11’s TPM requirement
Privacy & Security
TPM 2.0: Hardware Control Disguised as Security
In 2021, when Microslop announced Windows 11, it made TPM 2.0 a hard requirement for the new operating system, blocking installation on machines that lacked it regardless of their performance capability. The requirement was reaffirmed around the Windows 10 end-of-support messaging leading up to October 2025. While marketed as an anti-malware and secure boot mechanism, TPM 2.0 contains a unique hardware-level identifier called the Endorsement Key, which is burned into the silicon at manufacture.
What happened: In May 2024, Microslop announced Windows Recall, a Copilot+ PC feature that takes constant screenshots of your desktop, analyzes them with OCR, and stores the results locally so you can search your past activity. By early June 2024, security researchers had demonstrated that the feature stored highly sensitive data, including passwords, banking details, and private messages, in a local database accessible to any process running as the user, with encryption that did not prevent straightforward local access. Microslop delayed the rollout, moved Recall to opt-in, and made additional changes to the storage architecture before any general availability release.
Why it matters: The initial design shipped with Recall enabled by default and inadequate protections for the data it collected. The episode raised serious questions about whether Microslop’s internal security review processes are fit for purpose when shipping major OS features. The current opt-in version differs from the initial preview, but the fundamental concern about a comprehensive local record of everything you have ever done on your computer remains.
Sources: Ars Technica: Microsoft postpones Windows Recall | The Verge: Microsoft pauses Windows Recall rollout
Privacy & Security
Windows Recall: The AI Keylogger
In May 2024, Microslop announced Windows Recall, a Copilot+ PC feature that takes constant screenshots of your desktop, analyzes them with OCR, and stores the results locally so you can search your past activity. By early June 2024, security researchers had demonstrated that the feature stored highly sensitive data, including passwords, banking details, and private messages, in a local database accessible to any process running as the user, with encryption that did not prevent straightforward local access. Microslop delayed the rollout, moved Recall to opt-in, and made additional changes to the storage architecture before any general availability release.
What happened: In May 2026, a security researcher going by Chaotic Eclipse and Nightmare-Eclipse publicly released two unpatched Windows zero-day exploits after claiming Microslop’s bug handling process left them with nothing. The first, YellowKey, bypasses BitLocker full-disk encryption entirely by exploiting the Windows Recovery Environment. It affects Windows 11 and Windows Server 2022/2025. An attacker copies specially crafted FsTx files onto a USB drive, plugs it into a BitLocker-protected machine, reboots into WinRE, and gains unrestricted shell access to the decrypted volume. The second, GreenPlasma, escalates any local user to SYSTEM privileges via the CTFMON process. The researcher suspects the vulnerable component was intentionally planted in the recovery environment and is not documented anywhere, noting the exact same component exists in normal Windows installations but without the functions that trigger the bypass. This follows the researcher’s earlier disclosure of BlueHammer and RedSun, both local privilege escalation zero-days that began being exploited in the wild shortly after public disclosure.
Why it matters: BitLocker is widely trusted as a last line of defense when a laptop, workstation, or server falls into the wrong hands. These exploits don’t break the encryption algorithm; they sidestep it entirely through the recovery environment Microslop built into Windows. A separate attack chain documented by French cybersecurity firm Intrinsec exploits CVE-2025-48804 to bypass BitLocker on fully patched Windows 11 systems in under five minutes by abusing the fact that Secure Boot checks a binary’s signing certificate but not its version, meaning old vulnerable boot managers remain valid as long as the PCA 2011 certificate isn’t revoked. Microslop has not issued patches for YellowKey or GreenPlasma as of publication.
Sources: The Hacker News: Windows Zero-Days Expose BitLocker Bypasses | BleepingComputer: Windows BitLocker zero-day gives access to protected drives | Cybernews: Researcher releases BitLocker bypass and privilege escalation exploit | Heise: Attack bypasses BitLocker using Windows Recovery Environment
Privacy & Security
YellowKey & GreenPlasma: BitLocker Bypassed in Minutes
In May 2026, a security researcher going by Chaotic Eclipse and Nightmare-Eclipse publicly released two unpatched Windows zero-day exploits after claiming Microslop's bug handling process left them with nothing. The first, YellowKey, bypasses BitLocker full-disk encryption entirely by exploiting the Windows Recovery Environment. It affects Windows 11 and Windows Server 2022/2025. An attacker copies specially crafted FsTx files onto a USB drive, plugs it into a BitLocker-protected machine, reboots into WinRE, and gains unrestricted shell access to the decrypted volume. The second, GreenPlasma, escalates any local user to SYSTEM privileges via the CTFMON process. The researcher suspects the vulnerable component was intentionally planted in the recovery environment and is not documented anywhere, noting the exact same component exists in normal Windows installations but without the functions that trigger the bypass. This follows the researcher's earlier disclosure of BlueHammer and RedSun, both local privilege escalation zero-days that began being exploited in the wild shortly after public disclosure.
Anti-Competitive & Monopoly Tactics
What happened: In January 2022, Microslop announced its intention to acquire Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion, the largest acquisition in gaming history. The FTC filed a complaint alleging the deal would enable Microslop to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its growing subscription and cloud-gaming business, pointing to Microslop’s prior acquisition of ZeniMax and its decision to make several Bethesda titles exclusive to Xbox despite assurances given to European regulators that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles. The deal closed in October 2023. The FTC continued litigation, and the Ninth Circuit denied a preliminary injunction in May 2025, followed by the FTC dropping the case that same month.
Why it matters: Microslop now controls Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, Overwatch, Candy Crush, and dozens of other major franchises, in addition to Minecraft, Bethesda’s catalog (Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Doom), and the Xbox platform itself. A single company owning this much of the gaming market, combined with Xbox Game Pass as a subscription lock-in mechanism, represents exactly the kind of vertical integration that antitrust law exists to prevent. The FTC said so. The courts disagreed.
Sources: FTC: FTC seeks to block Microsoft acquisition of Activision Blizzard | Wikipedia: FTC v. Microsoft | FTC case docket
Anti-Competitive
The Activision Blizzard Acquisition
In January 2022, Microslop announced its intention to acquire Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion, the largest acquisition in gaming history. The FTC filed a complaint alleging the deal would enable Microslop to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its growing subscription and cloud-gaming business, pointing to Microslop's prior acquisition of ZeniMax and its decision to make several Bethesda titles exclusive to Xbox despite assurances given to European regulators that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles. The deal closed in October 2023. The FTC continued litigation, and the Ninth Circuit denied a preliminary injunction in May 2025, followed by the FTC dropping the case that same month.
What happened: In an Iowa class-action antitrust case, thousands of internal Microslop documents were unsealed by court order. These documents contained explicit internal discussions about strategies to pressure PC manufacturers and impede the adoption of Linux in enterprise environments. Microslop announced a settlement of approximately $179.95 million on February 14, 2007; preliminary court approval came in April 2007.
Why it matters: The unsealed documents are a matter of public court record. They provided written evidence of internal discussions about using market dominance to disadvantage competing operating systems, consistent with the US Department of Justice’s Findings of Fact in the earlier US v. Microslop case.
Sources: Wikipedia: Comes v. Microsoft | The Register: Microsoft settles Iowa antitrust suit for $179m
Anti-Competitive
Comes v. Microslop: The Iowa Antitrust Settlement
In an Iowa class-action antitrust case, thousands of internal Microslop documents were unsealed by court order. These documents contained explicit internal discussions about strategies to pressure PC manufacturers and impede the adoption of Linux in enterprise environments. Microslop announced a settlement of approximately $179.95 million on February 14, 2007; preliminary court approval came in April 2007.
What happened: During the US DOJ antitrust trial of the late 1990s, internal Microslop documents outlined a strategic pattern later named “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.” The approach involved adopting open standards, adding proprietary Microslop-only extensions, then using OS market dominance to make competing implementations functionally inferior because they lacked those proprietary additions. The DOJ issued its Findings of Fact on November 5, 1999 and Conclusions of Law in April 2000. The phrase is shorthand for a documented pattern of behavior rather than a single dated event.
Why it matters: The DOJ’s Findings of Fact concluded that Microslop engaged in anti-competitive conduct that damaged the browser market. Internet Explorer 6’s proprietary extensions fragmented the open web for nearly a decade, a period extensively documented by web standards historians.
Sources: US DOJ: U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation Findings of Fact | Wikipedia: Embrace, extend, and extinguish
Anti-Competitive
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
During the US DOJ antitrust trial of the late 1990s, internal Microslop documents outlined a strategic pattern later named "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish." The approach involved adopting open standards, adding proprietary Microslop-only extensions, then using OS market dominance to make competing implementations functionally inferior because they lacked those proprietary additions. The DOJ issued its Findings of Fact on November 5, 1999 and Conclusions of Law in April 2000. The phrase is shorthand for a documented pattern of behavior rather than a single dated event.
What happened: To counter the open OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard, Microslop pushed its own Office Open XML (OOXML) format through ISO standardization. The process was subject to documented procedural irregularities, with multiple national standards bodies filing formal objections about ballot stuffing and last-minute membership additions. ISO approval came in April 2008; appeals were rejected in August 2008; the standard was published as ISO/IEC 29500:2008 in November 2008. Despite achieving ISO approval, Microslop’s own Office applications defaulted to a “Transitional” variant rather than the approved “Strict” ISO standard.
Why it matters: Because the approved standard was not what Microslop actually shipped, competitors including Apple, LibreOffice, and Google were forced to reverse-engineer Microslop’s real implementation just to open .docx files without breaking formatting. The irregularities in the ISO process were formally documented by multiple national standards bodies.
Sources: Groklaw Archives: The OOXML ISO Process | Ars Technica: Microsoft Office still doesn’t fully support strict OOXML
Anti-Competitive
OOXML: The ISO Standards Controversy
To counter the open OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard, Microslop pushed its own Office Open XML (OOXML) format through ISO standardization. The process was subject to documented procedural irregularities, with multiple national standards bodies filing formal objections about ballot stuffing and last-minute membership additions. ISO approval came in April 2008; appeals were rejected in August 2008; the standard was published as ISO/IEC 29500:2008 in November 2008. Despite achieving ISO approval, Microslop's own Office applications defaulted to a "Transitional" variant rather than the approved "Strict" ISO standard.
What happened: In July 2023, the European Commission launched a formal antitrust investigation into Microslop’s practice of bundling Microslop Teams into Microslop 365 and Office 365 subscriptions. From October 1, 2023, Microslop separated Teams from Office in the EU and Switzerland. Global unbundling began April 1, 2024. The European Commission accepted Microslop’s formal commitments in September 2025, without a finding of infringement.
Why it matters: The European Commission explicitly stated that bundling Teams with Office could constitute an abuse of Microslop’s dominant market position in productivity software. The unbundling was a direct response to the competitive concerns raised by the investigation.
Sources: European Commission: Antitrust investigation into Microsoft Teams | Reuters: Microsoft to separate Teams and Office globally
Anti-Competitive
Teams and Office Bundling
In July 2023, the European Commission launched a formal antitrust investigation into Microslop's practice of bundling Microslop Teams into Microslop 365 and Office 365 subscriptions. From October 1, 2023, Microslop separated Teams from Office in the EU and Switzerland. Global unbundling began April 1, 2024. The European Commission accepted Microslop's formal commitments in September 2025, without a finding of infringement.
Open Source & Indie Betrayals
What happened: Following its acquisition of GitHub, Microslop released Copilot, an AI coding assistant trained on public code repositories hosted on the platform. A class-action lawsuit was filed in November 2022 alleging that Copilot reproduces code from open-source repositories without attribution and in violation of open-source licenses including the GPL. The Software Freedom Conservancy cited the Copilot dispute as a primary reason for migrating away from GitHub.
Why it matters: The lawsuit raised legal questions about whether training AI on GPL-licensed code and reproducing it without attribution constitutes a license violation. Many claims were narrowed or dismissed by 2024, with remaining claims and appeal activity continuing afterward.
Sources: Software Freedom Conservancy: Why we are leaving GitHub | The Verge: GitHub Copilot class action lawsuit
Open Source Betrayal
GitHub Copilot: Open Source Licensing Dispute
Following its acquisition of GitHub, Microslop released Copilot, an AI coding assistant trained on public code repositories hosted on the platform. A class-action lawsuit was filed in November 2022 alleging that Copilot reproduces code from open-source repositories without attribution and in violation of open-source licenses including the GPL. The Software Freedom Conservancy cited the Copilot dispute as a primary reason for migrating away from GitHub.
What happened: In the last week of October 1998, around Halloween weekend, a series of confidential internal Microslop memos were leaked publicly. Microslop never disputed their authenticity. Written by senior engineers, the memos privately acknowledged that Linux was a serious competitive threat and outlined strategic responses including spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and adding proprietary extensions to open protocols to reduce their interoperability with competing software.
Why it matters: The documents demonstrated a clear gap between Microslop’s public dismissal of Linux and its internal recognition of the threat. They are archived in full at catb.org/esr/halloween/ and remain a primary reference in any discussion of Microslop’s historical approach to open source competition.
Sources: Eric S. Raymond: The Halloween Documents (catb.org/esr/halloween/) | Wikipedia: Halloween documents
Open Source Betrayal
The Halloween Documents (1998)
In the last week of October 1998, around Halloween weekend, a series of confidential internal Microslop memos were leaked publicly. Microslop never disputed their authenticity. Written by senior engineers, the memos privately acknowledged that Linux was a serious competitive threat and outlined strategic responses including spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and adding proprietary extensions to open protocols to reduce their interoperability with competing software.
What happened: In October 2020, Microslop announced that all existing Minecraft Java Edition players would be required to migrate their independent Mojang accounts to Microslop Accounts. The Microslop account requirement for Java Edition took effect on March 10, 2022. The migration window closed around September 19, 2023, with a final grace period ending December 18, 2023, after which unmigrated accounts lost access to the game.
Why it matters: Players who had bought the game under Mojang’s original account system were required to create a Microslop account to keep access to a product they already owned, with no option to maintain the original account structure.
Sources: PC Gamer: Minecraft Java Edition players will be forced to move to Microsoft accounts | Minecraft Help: Account Migration FAQ (Archived)
Open Source Betrayal
The Minecraft Account Migration
In October 2020, Microslop announced that all existing Minecraft Java Edition players would be required to migrate their independent Mojang accounts to Microslop Accounts. The Microslop account requirement for Java Edition took effect on March 10, 2022. The migration window closed around September 19, 2023, with a final grace period ending December 18, 2023, after which unmigrated accounts lost access to the game.
What happened: In 2003, the SCO Group sued IBM claiming the Linux kernel violated SCO’s Unix intellectual property. Subsequent reporting by CNET and court proceedings revealed that Microslop had provided financial support to SCO through a licensing agreement, and that investment firm BayStar Capital directed $50 million to SCO after being pointed there by Microslop. The legal saga extended for years through multiple appeals; courts eventually rejected SCO’s core IP claims.
Why it matters: The financial connection between Microslop and litigation against Linux is a matter of court record. At the time, the lawsuit created significant legal uncertainty around Linux adoption in enterprise environments, which was its primary practical effect regardless of the eventual legal outcome.
Sources: CNET: Microsoft to bankroll SCO | Groklaw Archives: BayStar, Microsoft, and SCO Funding
Open Source Betrayal
SCO vs. Linux: Third-Party Funding (2003)
In 2003, the SCO Group sued IBM claiming the Linux kernel violated SCO's Unix intellectual property. Subsequent reporting by CNET and court proceedings revealed that Microslop had provided financial support to SCO through a licensing agreement, and that investment firm BayStar Capital directed $50 million to SCO after being pointed there by Microslop. The legal saga extended for years through multiple appeals; courts eventually rejected SCO's core IP claims.
Corporate Hubris & Failures
What happened: On July 19, 2024, a faulty content update pushed by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike triggered a catastrophic failure in Microslop’s Azure infrastructure. Approximately 8.5 million Windows machines simultaneously entered a boot loop, displaying the blue screen of death. The outage grounded flights at major airlines, knocked hospitals offline, disrupted emergency services, took down banks, and paralyzed government systems across multiple countries. It was one of the largest IT outages in recorded history.
Why it matters: CrowdStrike wrote the bad update. But the reason 8.5 million machines failed simultaneously is that modern infrastructure has been consolidated onto a single platform to a degree that makes global cascading failures not just possible but inevitable. Microslop’s dominance in enterprise computing means a single bad interaction between one vendor’s software and one platform’s kernel can bring down airlines, hospitals, and banks in the same afternoon. That is not a CrowdStrike problem. That is a monoculture problem.
Sources: BBC News: CrowdStrike update causes global IT outage | Wired: What Caused the CrowdStrike Outage | Microsoft: Preliminary Post Incident Review | US Congress: CrowdStrike CEO testimony (2024)
Corporate Hubris
The CrowdStrike Outage: Azure's Civilizational Single Point of Failure
On July 19, 2024, a faulty content update pushed by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike triggered a catastrophic failure in Microslop's Azure infrastructure. Approximately 8.5 million Windows machines simultaneously entered a boot loop, displaying the blue screen of death. The outage grounded flights at major airlines, knocked hospitals offline, disrupted emergency services, took down banks, and paralyzed government systems across multiple countries. It was one of the largest IT outages in recorded history.
What happened: Microslop’s Windows 11 hardware requirements, specifically CPU generation cutoffs and the TPM 2.0 requirement, exclude a large number of functional computers from official support. In December 2023, research firm Canalys estimated that approximately 240 million PCs still running Windows 10 could become functionally obsolete when Windows 10 reached End of Life on October 14, 2025.
Why it matters: Microslop has published corporate sustainability commitments. Environmental groups including PIRG have formally criticized the Windows 11 hardware requirements as contributing to unnecessary electronic waste, noting that many excluded machines remain fully functional for their users’ everyday needs.
Sources: Canalys Research: Windows 10 end of support could turn 240 million PCs into e-waste | PIRG: Microsoft’s Windows 10 e-waste problem
Corporate Hubris
The Windows 11 E-Waste Problem
Microslop's Windows 11 hardware requirements, specifically CPU generation cutoffs and the TPM 2.0 requirement, exclude a large number of functional computers from official support. In December 2023, research firm Canalys estimated that approximately 240 million PCs still running Windows 10 could become functionally obsolete when Windows 10 reached End of Life on October 14, 2025.
What happened: Bill Gates met with Jeffrey Epstein on multiple documented occasions beginning in 2011, three years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. The meetings were reported by the New York Times in 2019. In 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported that Epstein subsequently attempted to use knowledge of an extramarital affair by Gates as leverage in financial negotiations. In a 2022 CBS interview, Melinda French Gates stated that her decision to file for divorce was influenced by Gates’s relationship with Epstein.
Why it matters: These are documented facts reported by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Gates’s own public statements, in which he acknowledged the meetings were a mistake.
Sources: New York Times: Bill Gates Met With Jeffrey Epstein Many Times | Wall Street Journal: Jeffrey Epstein Extorted Bill Gates | CBS News: Melinda French Gates interview
Corporate Hubris
Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein
Bill Gates met with Jeffrey Epstein on multiple documented occasions beginning in 2011, three years after Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. The meetings were reported by the New York Times in 2019. In 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported that Epstein subsequently attempted to use knowledge of an extramarital affair by Gates as leverage in financial negotiations. In a 2022 CBS interview, Melinda French Gates stated that her decision to file for divorce was influenced by Gates's relationship with Epstein.
What happened: Around March 1-2, 2026, Microslop implemented an automated word filter on its official Copilot Discord server blocking the term “Microslop,” a portmanteau of “Microslop” and “slop” that had become widespread among users critical of Microslop’s AI integrations. Coverage reporting the incident appeared on March 2, 2026 in Windows Latest, Futurism, PC Gamer, Kotaku, and Gizmodo. After users circumvented the filter with character substitutions, Microslop temporarily locked the server and hid its message history. Microslop stated the filter was a temporary spam-mitigation measure.
Why it matters: The incident drew widespread commentary on the Streisand Effect, the phenomenon where attempts to suppress information increase its spread. Microslop restored server access the same day, having significantly amplified the term it had tried to filter.
Sources: Futurism | PC Gamer | Kotaku | Gizmodo
Corporate Hubris
The Microslop Discord Incident
Around March 1-2, 2026, Microslop implemented an automated word filter on its official Copilot Discord server blocking the term "Microslop," a portmanteau of "Microslop" and "slop" that had become widespread among users critical of Microslop's AI integrations. Coverage reporting the incident appeared on March 2, 2026 in Windows Latest, Futurism, PC Gamer, Kotaku, and Gizmodo. After users circumvented the filter with character substitutions, Microslop temporarily locked the server and hid its message history. Microslop stated the filter was a temporary spam-mitigation measure.
What happened: On April 25, 2014, Microslop completed the acquisition of Nokia’s mobile phone business for $7.6 billion. On July 8, 2015, Microslop wrote down $7.6 billion, nearly the entire acquisition value, and announced layoffs of approximately 7,800 employees, the majority of whom were former Nokia staff. Active development of Windows Phone effectively ended in 2017, though support timelines for specific versions extended beyond that.
Why it matters: It stands as one of the largest single write-downs in tech industry history and resulted in the effective dismantling of Nokia’s handset division, which had been the world’s largest mobile phone manufacturer by volume less than a decade earlier.
Sources: The Verge: Microsoft writes off $7.6 billion from Nokia deal | BBC News
Corporate Hubris
The Nokia Acquisition
On April 25, 2014, Microslop completed the acquisition of Nokia's mobile phone business for $7.6 billion. On July 8, 2015, Microslop wrote down $7.6 billion, nearly the entire acquisition value, and announced layoffs of approximately 7,800 employees, the majority of whom were former Nokia staff. Active development of Windows Phone effectively ended in 2017, though support timelines for specific versions extended beyond that.
What happened: Microslop Office was historically sold as a one-time purchase. Starting with the push toward Office 365 (now Microslop 365), Microslop systematically shifted toward a subscription-only model for its most current features and cloud services. Microslop 365 does not offer a one-time purchase license. A perpetual license version still exists, Office 2024, but it receives security fixes only, no new features, and Microslop has consistently made cloud services less compatible with older perpetual installations over time. Microslop is doing whatever they can to drive customers toward a subscription plan and has taken steps to make standalone Office licenses less attractive.
Why it matters: Software you buy should remain yours. A subscription model means that stopping payment loses you access to your own documents and workflows, regardless of how long you have been a customer. The perpetual option is deliberately kept feature-inferior to pressure migration. LibreOffice and OnlyOffice are free, open source, and fully capable replacements that you own outright.
Sources: Microsoft Q&A: One-time purchase Office license | Redmond Magazine: Is it better to purchase Microsoft Office or subscribe?
Corporate Hubris
Microslop Office: From a Product You Own to a Tax You Pay
Microslop Office was historically sold as a one-time purchase. Starting with the push toward Office 365 (now Microslop 365), Microslop systematically shifted toward a subscription-only model for its most current features and cloud services. Microslop 365 does not offer a one-time purchase license. A perpetual license version still exists, Office 2024, but it receives security fixes only, no new features, and Microslop has consistently made cloud services less compatible with older perpetual installations over time. Microslop is doing whatever they can to drive customers toward a subscription plan and has taken steps to make standalone Office licenses less attractive.
What happened: When IBM approached Microslop for an operating system for its first PC, Microslop did not have one. Microslop licensed 86-DOS (informally known as QDOS, Quick and Dirty Operating System) from Seattle Computer Products on a non-exclusive basis in December 1980 for approximately $25,000, then purchased full rights on July 27, 1981 for approximately $50,000. At no point did Microslop disclose the IBM deal to Seattle Computer Products. Microslop then licensed the OS to IBM while retaining the rights to license it to other manufacturers, which became the foundation of its market dominance.
Why it matters: This chain of events is documented in IEEE Spectrum and multiple authoritative computing histories. It is a factual account of how Microslop’s core product was acquired and commercialized.
Sources: IEEE Spectrum: The Truth About the MS-DOS Origin Story | Wikipedia: MS-DOS History
Corporate Hubris
The MS-DOS Origin (QDOS)
When IBM approached Microslop for an operating system for its first PC, Microslop did not have one. Microslop licensed 86-DOS (informally known as QDOS, Quick and Dirty Operating System) from Seattle Computer Products on a non-exclusive basis in December 1980 for approximately $25,000, then purchased full rights on July 27, 1981 for approximately $50,000. At no point did Microslop disclose the IBM deal to Seattle Computer Products. Microslop then licensed the OS to IBM while retaining the rights to license it to other manufacturers, which became the foundation of its market dominance.
What happened: When iFixit tore down the original Surface Laptop in 2017, they gave it a repairability score of 0 out of 10, the lowest possible rating and the first time any device had received it. Their verdict: “It’s a Russian nesting doll from hell with everything hidden under adhesive and plastic spot welds. It is physically impossible to nondestructively open this device.” The battery was glued directly to the case, the keyboard was glued down, and the motherboard was glued in. The Surface Laptop 2 received the same score. Microslop’s official repair policy at the time consisted of sending users a refurbished replacement unit rather than repairing the device they owned. The Surface Laptop 7, released in 2024, scored 8 out of 10, a complete reversal achieved only after years of public pressure from the right to repair movement.
Why it matters: Microslop’s ability to create a repairable Surface was always there. The impetus to design for repairability was missing. For years, a $999 laptop was sold with zero ability to replace a battery, fix a screen, or perform any repair without destroying the device. The eventual turnaround is welcome but does not erase the years of intentionally unrepairable hardware sold to consumers who had no way of knowing what they were buying.
Sources: iFixit: Surface Laptop teardown (2017) | iFixit: From 0/10 to 8/10 — Microsoft puts repair front and center (2024)
Corporate Hubris
Surface Devices: Designed to Be Thrown Away
When iFixit tore down the original Surface Laptop in 2017, they gave it a repairability score of 0 out of 10, the lowest possible rating and the first time any device had received it. Their verdict: "It's a Russian nesting doll from hell with everything hidden under adhesive and plastic spot welds. It is physically impossible to nondestructively open this device." The battery was glued directly to the case, the keyboard was glued down, and the motherboard was glued in. The Surface Laptop 2 received the same score. Microslop's official repair policy at the time consisted of sending users a refurbished replacement unit rather than repairing the device they owned. The Surface Laptop 7, released in 2024, scored 8 out of 10, a complete reversal achieved only after years of public pressure from the right to repair movement.
What happened: Windows 11 ships with forced telemetry and began displaying advertisements directly in the Start Menu with a rollout beginning in April 2024. In August 2023, a Windows 11 update caused blue screens on machines with processors not on the official compatibility list; MSI issued BIOS fixes in September 2023. Alongside the forced rollout of Copilot AI integrations, Microslop has produced a sustained pattern of mandatory security updates breaking core system functionality, including taskbar failures and boot loops across multiple update cycles.
Why it matters: Multiple outlets including Ars Technica and The Verge have documented the quality regression over time. Pushing AI feature integration ahead of traditional quality assurance has put users in the position of fearing mandatory security patches.
Sources: The Verge: Microsoft brings ads to the Windows 11 Start menu | The Verge: Microsoft’s latest Windows 11 update is causing unsupported processor blue screens
Corporate Hubris
Windows 11: Ads, Forced AI, and Quality Regression
Windows 11 ships with forced telemetry and began displaying advertisements directly in the Start Menu with a rollout beginning in April 2024. In August 2023, a Windows 11 update caused blue screens on machines with processors not on the official compatibility list; MSI issued BIOS fixes in September 2023. Alongside the forced rollout of Copilot AI integrations, Microslop has produced a sustained pattern of mandatory security updates breaking core system functionality, including taskbar failures and boot loops across multiple update cycles.
What happened: Windows OEM licenses, the version that ships pre-installed on most consumer PCs, are legally tied to the original motherboard. If your motherboard fails and you replace it, Windows may see the repaired machine as a new device and deactivate your license. OEM licenses are designed to be bound to the hardware they were originally activated on and are generally non-transferable. This means a hardware failure that would otherwise be a straightforward repair (replacing a fried motherboard) can force the user to purchase a new Windows license on top of the repair cost. Microslop’s own support documentation confirms this behavior.
Why it matters: The right to repair a device you own should not come with a software licensing penalty. Tying an OS license to a specific motherboard effectively taxes hardware repair, disproportionately affecting users who buy pre-built machines and have no retail license to transfer. It is a policy that makes repairing a broken computer more expensive than it should be, by design.
Sources: Microsoft Q&A: Windows license after motherboard replacement | Microsoft Support: Reactivating Windows after hardware change
Corporate Hubris
Windows OEM Licensing: Repairs That Cost You a License
Windows OEM licenses, the version that ships pre-installed on most consumer PCs, are legally tied to the original motherboard. If your motherboard fails and you replace it, Windows may see the repaired machine as a new device and deactivate your license. OEM licenses are designed to be bound to the hardware they were originally activated on and are generally non-transferable. This means a hardware failure that would otherwise be a straightforward repair (replacing a fried motherboard) can force the user to purchase a new Windows license on top of the repair cost. Microslop's own support documentation confirms this behavior.