Absolutely true and brilliant comparison. +1
Humour aside, analogies are really important and I have never understood the disparagement of comparing one group or situation to another. Analogising is a tool to help understand one other and promote diversity.
I think there is a common false belief that only technical people can understand some concepts. I believe it’s more the case that as a society we often don’t have good pedagogical tools available to us in the public domain to help people become the critical thinkers our democratic society needs them to be.
I say this with the hope for a shift towards social production/Commons-based peer production, and a re-imagining of the (currently) rentier and extractive business models on digital assets, which make no sense anymore in a digital society where information is light.
Design global, make local.
Favorite authors on this: Aaron Swartz('s manifesto), Kevin Carson and Yochai Benkler.
Of course, you could always argue “for the gallery”, i.e. not try to persuade your opponent, but to merely use the debate as a platform to reach an audience. But this is not persuasion; this is rhetoric. Analogies can be used as rhetorical tools. But analogies won’t persuade your opponent.
Therefore, if you’re arguing with someone else one-on-one, and there is no one else to win over by rhetorical tricks, you should avoid using analogies, since analogies aren’t persuasive.
And it’s all inevitably followed by an argument about the analogy itself.
> Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say
https://write.privacytools.io/freddy/why-privacy-matters-eve...