Yelling "slippery slope fallacy" does not prove that the slope is in fact not slippery.
The validity of the slippery slope argument turns on how solid the reasoning chain is from action to consequence to the next consequence and so on, through to the final outcome. Do we have good reason to think that each step will happen?
So, in this case, do we have good reason to think that this slope might in fact be slippery? That is, do we have good reason to think that the current banning will result in less harmful things also being banned down the road?
First, is there any pressure toward moving to banning more speech? Yes, there is (search for "deplatforming" for evidence).
Second, is there justification available for moving further? It's right there in the article title: "harmful". Can you justify censoring QAnon because they're harmful? Yeah, you can make that case. How about homeopathy or anti-vaxxers? How about pro-life people? There are those who will argue convincingly that those views are harmful.
And third, there is now precedent for censoring what was un-censorable before.
That doesn't prove anything, but it's enough for me to suspect that this slope is in fact slippery. There's going to be a human tendency to want to go further.
The thing that would make this slope not slippery is if there were some bright line that people agreed on as to what can be censored and why, and the current stuff was clearly one one side of that bright line, and almost everything else was clearly on the other side. That would place a limit, agreed upon by most people, of how far censorship could go, and prevent people from going further. But I don't see such a bright line. Do you?
The clearly visible and eye-searingly bright line here is that the people on Parler were not just wishing ill against others but making plans and executing them. There was no moderation to keep those publicly visible conversations from gathering steam.
It's very easy to avoid seeing clear lines in the sand if you walk around with your eyes closed.
The validity of the slippery slope argument turns on how solid the reasoning chain is from action to consequence to the next consequence and so on, through to the final outcome. Do we have good reason to think that each step will happen?
So, in this case, do we have good reason to think that this slope might in fact be slippery? That is, do we have good reason to think that the current banning will result in less harmful things also being banned down the road?
First, is there any pressure toward moving to banning more speech? Yes, there is (search for "deplatforming" for evidence).
Second, is there justification available for moving further? It's right there in the article title: "harmful". Can you justify censoring QAnon because they're harmful? Yeah, you can make that case. How about homeopathy or anti-vaxxers? How about pro-life people? There are those who will argue convincingly that those views are harmful.
And third, there is now precedent for censoring what was un-censorable before.
That doesn't prove anything, but it's enough for me to suspect that this slope is in fact slippery. There's going to be a human tendency to want to go further.
The thing that would make this slope not slippery is if there were some bright line that people agreed on as to what can be censored and why, and the current stuff was clearly one one side of that bright line, and almost everything else was clearly on the other side. That would place a limit, agreed upon by most people, of how far censorship could go, and prevent people from going further. But I don't see such a bright line. Do you?