[johnnyanmac]

Devices can't literally own a person, so it's not the correct use.

I don't like being nitpicky, but if we're going to argue about the "correct usage" and not accept colloquial usage has perverted the term, I may as well set the record straight:

>a person who is forced to work for and obey another and is considered to be their property; an enslaved person.

[gambiting]

>>Devices can't literally own a person, so it's not the correct use.

No, it is actually completely correct. But for the sake of playing this fun game of being "Technically right" here's also a dictionary definition:

Slave noun:

"a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person:"

She was a slave to her own ambition.

>>and not accept colloquial usage has perverted the term

No such thing has happened, words can have both literal and figurative meaning.

[johnnyanmac]

>No, it is actually completely correct.

fair enough, I thought that definition was unofficial or marked as slang.

>No such thing has happened, words can have both literal and figurative meaning.

yes, like "literally" having the definition of "figuratively". I would indeed call that a perversion:

>to divert to a wrong end or purpose

most of the time that is at best marked as slang (such as use of a double negative to mean a negative, and not a soft positive), but I guess that's not my call to make.

[chaps]

Hmmm. Personally when the non-disambiguated wikipedia page of a specific word starts with, "$WORD is the ownership of a person as property, especially in regards to their labor." and includes a photo of a physically mutilated other person, then maybe there are reasons to be a bit more careful since it's very easy to pass the wrong message.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery