"Slippery slope fallacy" defined. Simply agreeing to outlaw some things — child pornography, incitement to murder, violation of human rights — doesn't set you on an irreversible course to outlawing everything. Partial regulation by community consensus is a fundamental tenet of all human civilisation.

I think there's a big difference between opinion-driven censorship and legal-driven.

What about the "slippery slope" of allowing apps that facilitate human rights violations by oppressive regimes, as long as the app's nexus to it is relatively minor?

but we're already removing apps we deem against our morals.

>Once you start deleting apps/speech, the requests and outrage become never-ending.

Apps are not speech, and apps have been deleted in the past, because Google has terms of service which can be violated. And yet, requests and outrage have not already become never-ending, therefore it is already demonstrably false that any attempt to delete an app must lead to never ending requests and outrage, because neither human beings nor society work that way.

"slippery slope" seen for the empty concern trolling that it is.

Remove all content mentioned in a DMCA takedown request? Reasonable, not worth spending the money to go to court over.

Remove an application that facilitates subjugation of human beings? That's going a little too far if you ask pbreit.

You believe states have a right to free speech?

Yeah, unless we are speaking about gab.

We're way past the slippery slope though. Google already is removing apps for completely frivolous reasons. They removed gab.com because some nazi trolls were using it, so that is the standard that Google has established. And by that standard, they are fine with the handmaiden app.