I'd argue reddit is a decent example. They banned some very hateful subs, and then later started banning subs because they 'were not good for advertising' see r/waterniggas.

That's not a slippery slope, though. That's Reddit banning subs for two different reasons. I'd they banned subs for hateful content then changed the definition of "hateful content" to include things advertisers object to then it would be. But if they're publicly stating that they're doing it because of advertisers then it's not really related.

Any time reddit says they are removing something due to "hateful content", it's just PR speak for "we got some media/advertiser backlash for this content so we are removing it".

Reddit was notoriously infested with white supremacist subs, jailbait subs, pics of dead people subs, and more, and they were all brought up to the admins many times, and the admins never took any action on this hateful content until CNN et al started writing articles about it.

It's not entirely unlike this situation with Cloudflare, really. These companies talk a big game about their principles and morals, but at the end of the day the only principle they strictly adhere to is the principle of public backlash.

How are pictures of dead people "hateful"?

Should we ban all pro-abortion subreddits as well because they promote murder of unborn children?

Recently, after Youtube responded to Steven Crowder's harassment of a gay reporter who works for Vox named Carlos Maza, a number of independent youtube personalities who comment on news mentioned they had their videos demonetized. This included people who are on the left. Here's an example and someone I follow[0]. It's not quite what you're talking about, but it's an example of how trying to moderate speech or chill it affects everyone who isn't already an established player (CNN,MSNBC,etc) regardless of their ideology.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX4dDh-EGyI

You’re right about the demonetization effects, but to clarify the Maza-Crowder tiff - Maza previously spent years mocking Crowder and making inappropriate sexual references involving himself and Crowder. Crowder responded inappropriately, thinking he could pull off a Don Rickles act. Still, nothing either of them have done opens them up to harassment charges.

I think the wider demonetization is part of a cynical attempt to sabotage non-publisher media generally, it’s not an accidental side effect. There’s a scorched earth campaign by certain activists at Vox, Media Matters, and even CNN to contact advertisers en masse and essentially threaten that they are considering naming the advertiser in a hit piece about objectionable content. They aren’t dumb - they know the fallout will affect independent journalists and media of all politics.

Yours & my lifetime are limited.

How many controversial topics can we recall that we lived through and where they became accepted overtime? What medium was used at the time and was it the popular communication method for the time. I'm sure historically there was a similar fight with what mediums were available at the time. Burning books or just killing someone who speaks out.

The internet can be the only method nowadays where people with little finances can make a loud enough voice be heard and there are still unpopular views I'm worried won't ever get accepted if people are not being cautious about throwing away measures. That's why the slippery slope argument is worth me typing. Even if maybe it won't!