>Why not just say "Does not use your microphone without tapping a record button" (and make sure it's implemented like that).

Because it does. From the article:

"We only access your microphone if you have given our app permission and if you are actively using a specific feature that requires audio. This might include recording a video or using an optional feature we introduced two years ago to include music or other audio in your status updates."

No it doesn't.

"Might include..."

They want you understand that without having to be pinned to having said it. This is really carefully worded to get you to think exactly what you did. Why not just say "Doesn't use your microphone without tapping a record button"? It's reasonable to assume because that statement would be false.

What you are quoting is basically saying they'll use your microphone for anything they can think of, because obviously using the microphone is related to audio. To spell it out, tailoring content based on what they hear is a "feature that requires audio". The permission part they mention is an iOS restriction they can't get around.

A classic example of an "overspecific dementi",a complex answer where a simple one would have sufficed. However, in their defense, maybe this is the type of statement that expensive legal departments deliver by default as they consider it 'simple' and 'direct' compared to the stuff they usually write?