I don't get complaints like this sometimes. Yeah, like any place in the world - be it here, reddit, the other place that shall not be named (I got banned there right quick for having an original opinion), youtube channels, twitter - people who moderate these places, some of them, will overstep a bit unreasonably at times, with some snarky remarks that feel just as "fanboyish" as the original remarks made in the first place. Yeah, Phil Spencer, when he talks publicly, is marketing his company and is going to spin every single thing as a positive. Sony does the same thing, and hell who can forget the spin Reggie Fils-Aime put on quite literally everything. It was practically memeable, and even Reggie has poked fun at doing it himself sometimes while doing it. It was fun.
Reality is, there wasn't really a good reason, besides console warring, to try and shit all over Phil Spencer for simply doing what he's supposed to do - market his products in a positive light. He did so with possibly a small white lie. Maybe. Only Microsoft has the numbers to know for sure. Question more is like - why did the OP care? At all?
I feel like they wanted to start a much larger conversation on mods overstepping - which we all know happens everywhere - but while skirting all responsibility for his drive by console warring.