When the only thing a group has to stand on is a slippery slope of their own invention, ignoring them is a safe option.
Then you open with a slippery slope, “Suppose a schism opens... the next step...”
If that next step ever begins to materialize that would be the time to worry. Paralysis of decency and standards out of fear of a possible slippery slope is the miserable status quo, and not desirable. If this... then maybe that... and possibly later... isn’t an argument, it’s a fallacy.
I reiterate: the average millennial does not make a distinction between a website service and a protocol.
If you make ban lists (the Silicon Valley companies are operating in near sync with each other) - then the public expectation won't just be that level of moderation/censorship within the walled garden - but also outside of it.
We're already at the point of materialization, Stormfront and a socialist organization I can't recall (World Socialist something) are prevented from using ___domain names and other services like turning up in Google Search, Cloudfront or GoDaddy - effectively banning them from the web. They have then migrated to more censorship resistant networks. Legitimacy to the political persecution (by liberals) narrative has solidified in far right and far left circles - even the ones who aren't affiliated with the two organizations - it is now taken for granted in parts of mainstream web, parts of Reddit that organizations like DW are outright lying.
The trend is consistent, and I don't believe either of those two organizations were accused of being law breakers - and next to go down it will be Alex Jones - a watershed moment and advertising for censorship resistant networks because Jones is more famous than either. In the case of Jones his brand will be bolstered by this. China and Russia will say he is a ideological refugee, a political dissident and they will be able to make a great argument for that.
This is how censorship looks like from the inside perspective - it's just that you're on the inside. The Chinese feel the same way when being told off by the West on the subject of reeducation camps. You'll scoff at that I expect - but at least the Chinese are able to say these people needed handling because of real terrorism and illegal activity - where you've nothing to stand on.
Then you open with a slippery slope, “Suppose a schism opens... the next step...”
If that next step ever begins to materialize that would be the time to worry. Paralysis of decency and standards out of fear of a possible slippery slope is the miserable status quo, and not desirable. If this... then maybe that... and possibly later... isn’t an argument, it’s a fallacy.