Only because speaking in strong terms has somehow become taboo. We are neutering language.

I'm not sure if sarcasm, but I have issues with defining "EVIL" as "removing a feature to allow custom streaming". I also have issues considering falling down the stairs an "EPIC" fail, or reading companies looking for SUPERSTAR NINJA programmers, or things that are LITERALLY the worse ever happened to someone.

cygwin98 did not introduce the "evil" terminology. Google introduced the "evil" terminology.

Do you really think that the phrase, associated with Google, was intended to mean "We're not going to commit any war crimes?"

If you dislike hyperbole, that is fine, but blame the people who are actually responsible for introducing the hyperbole.

The meaning of the "don’t be evil" motto is "We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains."

How changing an undocumented function, that was used to circumvent an SDK that is clearly marked as beta and "could change significantly" can be classified as evil is beyond me.

The problem is that people are using the "don't be evil" whenever they see something that simply bothers them.

Damn, they closed a bug in android that allows me to remove advertisement from apps! Google don't be evil!

They shut down a product that was offered for free for almost a decade! Google don't be evil!

So what adjective will people use if Google starts charging if you search more than 10 times a day, or obscuring the maps a few miles from the destination asking for a fee to see the rest, or blackmailing people based on data extracted from the mail? Google don't be.... evillest maybe?

Ripping functionality out from under paying customers is not something that just "bothers" people. Hiding behind terms of use on SDKs isn't something that mellows the sting of this to users who probably don't even know what "SDK" means.

This situation invokes to comparisons to certain companies that had rather poor reputations in the 90s. Companies the slogan was almost certainly meant to differentiate Google from.

If hyperbole to shareholders is a-okay with you but hyperbole from angered consumers is out of line, then we just are not going to see eye-to-eye on this. I hope people inside Google do not share your attitude or Google truly is doomed to become what they assured us they wouldn't. This attitude towards consumers is extremely toxic.

I see that you prefer downvoting rather then having a discussion, so I will stop here.

Edit: Apologies, I didn't know that rule, it was obviously someone else.

1) I responded to you. Obviously. You just replied to my response to you.

2) Because your comment was in response to one of mine, it is impossible for me to downvote it. I can only downvote comments that are in response to others.

We're "neutering language"? Hyperbolize much?

I was hoping somebody would say that. That is exactly my point.

With Godwin's Law the standard argument is that hyperbole somehow diminishes the plight of those that suffered, but that argument really does not encompass the full breadth of the War On Hyperbole.

Here, for example, I've made an exaggeration with a comparison to sterilizing pets. Is the concern that I am diminishing the plight of pets and their reproductive lives? No, I don't think so, that would be silly. Rather, the objection is to the rhetorical device itself, not merely to the tasteless application of it.

(I suspect I've just been 'wooshed')

and I was hoping you'd get that it was a joke instead of spending time explaining what you meant :)

Aaaah yep. I should slow down. ;)