The Nazis were initially quite squeamish about taking the lives of innocent civilians. It was in 1939 that a Nazi supporter wrote to Hitler requesting permission to euthanize his severely disabled infant son [1], who he described as 'a monster'. Hitler send his personal physician Karl Brandt to Leipzig to assess the situation. Upon confirmation, Hitler personally authorized Brandt to arrange the euthanasia, with the promise to protect him legally. Don't forget that these were the Nazis, the original.

Once that happened, they gradually tried the idea with other disabled children, eventually progressing to deceiving the parents to get the permission. Then it got extended to teenagers and eventually adults, including disabled war veterans. Then there was a backlash and it stopped for a while. But it reappeared eventually, this time on an industrialized scale - the final solution. Disabilities were not the limit anymore. Arguably the worst genocide in human history started with the reluctant murder of a 5 month old infant, just 6 years before reaching its peak at the end of the war.

This is the classic example of a slippery slope. One hesitant misstep is the beginning. But as they realize its benefits (to them), they double down and gradually expand the scope until nothing is exempted. The consumer electronics industry and the software industry are certainly no exceptions to this. Is it too dramatic and hyperbolic to compare them to the Nazis? Admittedly, a bit. But perhaps it's not a bad idea to shame them like that, because clearly nothing else is working (with all due respects to the victims of the original). And it's not like they hesitate to shame us when it suits them.

[1] Gerhard Herbert Kretschmar (20 February 1939 – 25 July 1939): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Kretschmar

Personally: the idea that a "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy has always seemed like bulllshit to me. The vast majority of reasoning for why the judiciary makes the decisions it does is because of "precedent". Slippery slope is how the world operates. It surfaces everywhere, and when the slope we're sliding down matters, like this one, we have to fight back with fervor. Google isn't doing this in a vacuum; they're doing this because there's precedent for it, and because all they want is to assert more power over the world.

Google's behavior is utterly and entirely disgusting, unacceptable, despicable, and dishonorable. Everyone who even glances near this decision should feel overwhelming shame. If you have a shred of political power to fight this internally, you are a failure to yourself, your customers, and the world if you choose to stay silent. They'll read comments like these and think "we're right, we're being brave", because they have convinced themselves that there is bravery in wielding overwhelming power against their users.

> Personally: the idea that a "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy has always seemed like bulllshit to me.

I don't know if I got this wrong, but the 'slippery slope' argument by itself never appeared to be a logical fallacy to me. There are numerous valid examples of it, and that's the context of its use in my previous reply. There certainly is a 'slippery slope' logical fallacy, but I thought it meant that you are misapplying/misusing the slippery slope argument where it isn't valid or doesn't apply.

> Google's behavior is utterly and entirely disgusting, unacceptable, despicable, and dishonorable.

I was going to apply the Nazi label on them everyone else who use such sleazy tactics. I hesitated because a lot of people are still emotional about the holocaust (it has been 80 years) and object to equating anything with Nazism. But I sometimes wonder if the objection is meant only to silence the critics. While their actions haven't yet reached the magnitude of atrocities committed by the Nazis, their actions certainly are consistent with the Nazi tactics. Besides, it's not as if they had any qualms labeling ordinary people 'Pirates' for sharing media. Therefore I feel it's quite appropriate to apply to them and promote the label of 'Supply Side Nazis'.

youre comparing the cold blooded murder of millions to googles play store policy? yeah, i think the comparison might be slightly dramatic

Check my justification for that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45022291

While what the Nazis did was extremely barbaric, I feel that people gate keep their references too much - especially when talking about their tactics and methods, rather than the magnitude of their cruelty. For example, you don't have to be Joseph Goebbels or someone as vicious as him to follow his tactics. And I don't find an issue in invoking his reference if someone does this.

i read your justification already... Ill say it again. One is the mass murder of millions of people, and the other, IS A FUCKING EULA

Please don't comment like this on HN, no matter how right you are or feel you are. We need everyone to observe the guidelines even if others are posting comments that are understandably upsetting. Please try to be one of the ones who makes things better not worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What the hell?

Nazi had to stop several times the euthanizing of handicapped and retarded because of the public backslash.

It worked because the majority of German doctors were full on board but there were talks of that way before nazi got in power.

I believe even in the USA there was program like sterilization of « degenerates » and « negro » At these times.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-sterilisation-program-tri...

(Édit : After checking the source, these programs went on from 1929 so 4 years before nazi were elected, and lasted until 1974 !!!)

I’m not sure all of that is in any way comparable to a company abusing its monopolistic position to enforce rules that will benefit it.