No, and there is no difference, because "infected" in their eyes is not necessarily so in the user's. To give a clear example, AVs have had a long history of false positive problems with things like cracks, keygens, and demoscene productions. Even then, for the most part(? I have not used a persistent AV for a long time) I believe they still tell you first and then let you decide what to do when they find something.

I remember many years ago when the first widespread worms for Windows started circulating. All MS did was publish news and a removal tool. It was publicised greatly, but the ultimate choice was left to the owners of the computers, and that's how it should be.

All the big tech companies (and even a lot of the smaller ones) are becoming increasingly authoritarian, and that's the most concerning thing about this.

Windows Defender doesn't remove stuff silently, it shows you notifications, provides control to ignore parts of your computer you know can misfire and you can revert the actions it does.