I always get a kick out of analogies on HN. When there’s a technical concept being discussed, someone will make a non-technical analogy. When there’s a non-technical concept being discussed, someone will make a technical analogy.

And it’s all inevitably followed by an argument about the analogy itself.

The analogies help break it down for less technically oriented people so that they can get behind the cause as well.

I believe that compassionate educational material - which would allow for diverse pedagogical 'ladders' or 'on-ramps' for people on different skill levels - on the core systemic issues/challenges we are currently facing, is a much better strategy than flimsy and inaccurate analogies.

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.

analogies are great, but there's just literally nothing that corresponds to vitamin c on the internet. the analogy just goes into completely unchartered waters and crashes against the rocks when it pretends that it is a life or death matter. the internet can't stop you getting scurvy - in fact, since it's effective at reducing exercise, it seems to run in the opposite direction from the truth and it's just alarmist nonsense.

I don't understand your analogy of uncharted waters and crashing against rocks.

Analogies can’t convince anyone who is not already sympathetic – anyone wanting to oppose your point would only poke holes in and argue about the analogy itself; making analogies does not help when arguing. Analogies only help when explaining something to someone who genuinely wants to understand it.

All argumentation is generally for the sake of the neutral interested third party, not the firm opponent.

In what theoretical dimension do you find these “neutral interested third party” people? In my experience, every discussion is a result of (at least) two people with both an opposing view and and, more crucially, an interest to argue the point. The very prerequisite of a debate is an interest in arguing a specific point of view, which most often precludes any participant being a neutral third party.

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.