The goal of book burning is to remove information, private owned books in this case, from the public by destroying them. While one could smash them and disintegrate them through the use of massive force, burning was the practical tool used.

If kindle suddenly create a goal of removing information from the public, in this case some private owned books, and goes through this act by destroying the information from private people own devices, doesn't that act align itself perfectly with book burning, through instead of using fire, they used electronic means.

Sure, its not something I would like to see on Wikipedia. Its not neutral, and there are better, impartial wording one could use to describe, but is it wrong to use in a blog?

  > doesn't that act align itself perfectly with book burning,
  > through instead of using fire, they used electronic means

The original blog post could be interpreted as claiming what the kindles main purpose is, but I doubt RMS would defend such interpretation. A one time act, while notable, does not equal primary purpose, and he and everyone else knows that.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rhetoric

1.a. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.

b. A treatise or book discussing this art.

2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.

3. a. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.

b. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.

4. Verbal communication; discourse.

I own a Kobo, but it's been seriously hacked by myself so it doesn't call home and only talks to SD cards. It also only gets non DRM epubs on it. Anything more would be considered virtual book burning on my part as well.

That's almost the definition of rhetoric.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/oct/22/amazon-wipes-cus...