The tradeoff here is "do you want to trust this repeat abuser again, or trust someone else who has not been [as] abusive?", not "do you want to trust this repeat abuser again, or nobody ever again?"

You're presenting an extreme example of a false dichotomy.

I don't see MS as the problem, but the structure of how we, as a society, create and use IT.

Signal uses DRM to protect its users from the OS. This is nice, because now they don't have to run to some other companies that could do the same thing.

Trusting something you can verify is a solution.

Which DRM solutions like TEE and FHE are, so I don't see the issue.

The "DRM" used here by Signal is just a Win32 function that keeps a window out of screen capture, not an anti-tamper software nor a protected media path.

Fair.

But it seems to me that's a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't go far enough.

In such a case as this, yes. Not every systems product is designed to exfiltrate your data.

Yes?

Isn't that how trust works? You stop trusting those that don't deserve it. Unless you're a complete isolationist and/or sociopath living off the land in the woods, you need some level of trust in others.