The end result of treating domestic and sexual abuse like Serious Important Subjects that people should only talk about in a Serious Respectful Tone isn't that people become more mindful of abuse dynamics, it's that they avoid bringing up the subject at all.
In practice, yes, abusive practices of corporations echo abusive practices of violent partners, and the parallel is worth highlighting. Bringing up the fact that both of them will use grand gestures to stop you from questioning their pattern of behavior isn't disrespectful, it's useful information.
If anything, abuse victims should hear that message more often.
I'll also note that the same demand for Serious Respectful Tone never seems to be invoked for metaphors that refer to other kinds of serious crime (including violent crime, such as murder). You can say "great job, you killed it out there", or "oof, my sportsball team got destroyed", etc. etc., and nobody seriously proposes that this somehow devalues life (human or otherwise).
Like domestic abusers, things only expand and escalate from here.
Twitter literally runs CSAM-as-a-service.
While Microsoft is not quite that evil, building the North Korean computer surveillance system with "Recall" comes pretty close. Other examples include things like Facebook's regular doxxing of it's users with their real name policy.
It's a crass comparison, but not unreasonable on both sides. Abuse goes beyond just physical violence, and the practices of these tech companies really do match those other kinds of abuse. The other half is that software has eaten the world, and these changes really do affect people's lives.
It's imperfect. We have way more choices in domestic partners than we do with operating systems but I think there are a lot of similarities though too. User-hostile software like Windows is intentionally designed to develop dependence and learned helplessness in users. Windows will gaslight you. Microsoft will victim blame. Many shared tactics. It's a fair comparison to make.
You're the only one saying that, not me.
The guy is an ex-Darknet Vendor and regularly interacts still with people that build ransomware, hack the US government, sell online drugs and he is quite pleasant compared to these people.
It’s _almost_ as if we don’t use “people that build ransomware, hack the US government, sell online drugs” as a baseline for “pleasant”.
I find it honestly ridiculous that people are complaining about provocative & hyperbolic title, to the point where I believe they are concern trolling.
Do you also have a problem with "killing" a process on a computer? A kill-fee on a contract? How about killing time?
It’s easy to not understand the impact or meaning of referring to violence in a flip way when one has never had to have experienced it.
I completely understand it being triggering but shying away from it because of that protects perpetrators. A lot of executive circles are filled with abusive freaks and their decision making reflects that.
I'll be happy to correct myself if I said anything wrong, but downvotes without comments really don't tell me much.
I don't think you actually mean "violence" in general, unless you think that word means something radically and fundamentally different from what I think it means (and my understanding is based on what dictionaries say; but I will happily acknowledge that I have encountered very, very many people whose apparent understanding of the term is utterly incomprehensible to me). I say this because I never, ever see people object to the use of idioms such as https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/you+killed+it . The objection is only ever raised with respect to very specific kinds of violence.
Or will you also object when I kill a process, or when POSIX-standard systems (I'm pretty sure this is part of the standard but I'm not that kind of nerd) continue to use `kill` as the command name? How about when a new startup releases a "killer app"?