[stndef]

I'm willing to be wrong, but it's specifically mentioned as an analogy for abuse in the article itself.

Not trying to turn everything "woke", but phrasing of scenarios around this just takes away from the severity of what actual abuse is.

[arowthway]

How does it take away from the severity of actual abuse? By not mentioning it when it's not relevant to the analogy?

[someguyiguess]

It’s actually more triggering / offensive that you brought up abuse when no one was talking about abuse. This site is for adults who understand the concept of analogies. You just wanted to bring up the topic of abuse for whatever reason. Why?

[bee_rider]

The article comes back to the abuse analogy multiple times. If you want to defend that as fine, go for it, but in no way is it a new topic that the poster here brought up.

[dontwannahearit]

Oh please, TFA has a title of "Flowers after the beating" - its a direct reference to domestic abuse which attempts to equate Microsofts behaviour and that of a domestic abuser.

Username checks out, but you might want to check with your mother about how she feels about this comparison.

TFA brings up abuse not stndef.

An analogy is "a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects" and stndef is right to point out that microsoft behavior, while abusive, is not comparable to domestic abuse "in significant respects". Not even close.

The TFA title is sensational for effect and in very poor taste.