The fact that they are also available as mobile applications should further make it clear that no, these applications are not running on Windows 3.1 or Windows 95.

That kind of language will get you kicked in the balls by engineers. Sure. It should make it “clear” that they’re not running on *this OS or that OS.

And what should also be made clear is that statement is an assumption. A probable one, IMO, a reasonable one, but an assumption nonetheless and therefore no one can call it a fact unless they just want to pretend to be right.

I ojbect to using language like “it looks like a thing so it’s OBVIOUSLY a thing, you morons” being presented as irrefutable evidence of some sort.

The fact that it’s an assumption should further make it clear that no, this is not a fact, and stating it as a fact is bullshit or deliberate misrepresentation.