Your entire reply feels overly cynical. No, nobody likes it when companies invade your privacy, a la F & G.

However, saying "it took another megacorp twenty years to fix their privacy problems, so we shouldn't trust $relativelysmallcompany for the next two decades" is not fair to $relativelysmallcompany and doesn't even consider the cultural change it probably took to get $megacorp to actually care about security and user privacy.

Personally, I don't really like Zoom. I use it, and it works okay, but there are a lot of little nitpicks I would like to see addressed- for instance, it'd be really nice to be able to adjust individual member's volume levels or be able to mute them outright as a participant instead of listening to a compressor that needs a new bearing in the background for an entire meeting because they're not using push-to-talk and the host just downloaded the client yesterday. I'm also more than willing to give a company time to fix underlying architecture problems and not demand fixes in the meantime.

I would want to be given the benefit of time to fix problems, wouldn't you?

It is not possible to extrapolate with certainty the quality of code from the bugs that remain in it when released.

“There’s a misspelling in the HTTP headers spec, so obviously this was written by amateurs.”

“Browser X has an RCE, so obviously they don’t care about security.”

These are obviously faulty logic when stated about other scenarios, and apply here as well.

Has Zoom been found to have the same specific technical issue reoccurring over multiple releases, to the tune of “buffer overflow” or similar? If so, then that’s a trend to throw up warning flags about.

A series of bugs that share no commonality other than being bugs is, perhaps, not so much.