>Before it became a popular term, it was intended as a criticism of arguments of the form, "A will lead to B will lead to C, so A is bad."

Sorry, this is backwards. Before it became a criticism of arguments "A will lead to B and so on" it was a term used to signify a "slippery slope", that is, something that has the potential to snowball to something much worse.

The name as a "criticism of the fallacy" resulted from the term being used as an argument -- not the other way around.

The DMCA isn't political? Hard disagree.

The slippery slope is a fallacy only if the slope isn't, in fact, slippery.

No, it's always a fallacy. If A leads to B, B leads to C, and C is bad, argue that people shouldn't do B, not A. Especially if A also leads to D, which is good.

If jumping out of a window usually leads to uncontrolled descent and flight into terrain, which then leads to experiencing a very large and sudden velocity change, which is followed by death from the injuries caused by said ∆v/∆t, I'm definitely going to argue against jumping out of a window. Sure, for the above A->B->C->D(eath) chain, there are many ways to prevent it from reaching the last node, but the default behavior is still A->B->C->D, so it's fair to argue against doing A without evident mitigations of steps B and/or C.

But if you're arguing not to jump out a window, and I have base jumping experience and am wearing a parachute, the argument is silly. Especially if the building is on fire.

Slippery slope arguments assume A leads to D and discard any positive effects A could have out of hand. That's why they're a fallacy.

No, a slippery slope is just that: A slippery slope.

A slippery slope is a inclined surface, a place in space that once you are into, makes you transition very fast to a worse state, like your head hitting the floor at great velocity.

That is you can start well, in a good state, and transition to a much worse state over time. Your definition is also valid but not the only one way to interpret it.

It is an expression that has been used in literature for hundreds of years, not just in english. It is a metaphor.

Do you make youtube videos? I do, and I am very conscious of what I say on my videos because I can not say whatever I want.

I can not say words like "Covid"(extremely forbidden) "negro" referring to someone skin color or something the machine will mistake as me talking about people when I am really not.

And it is also getting worse and worse. In the old times you could say whatever you wanted on youtube, you could even post illegal things like films(posters could abuse). Now you can not, and it is going to become worse in the future and it is youtube who abuses.

The Trump and brexit events were extremely important. People did things that the status quo did not want. Before that you had people like Hillary Clinton or Bezos that believed that because they controlled most media, they controlled people as puppets.

They felt very confident that they could advance their globalist program without serious resistance by the people.

After that it became clear that they had to control Internet too. At least the mass media on the Internet that affects most people.

I don't say that as a Trump supporter, I am not even American, but I have eyes. I see media reaction when someone gets killed by police and the media silence when a Trump supporter gets killed by a democrat radical and it is just disgusting how sectarian they are.

Yeah, it turns out when something becomes mainstream, it becomes beholden to mainstream sensibilities. You could post anything you wanted on old YouTube because nobody cared. Now people care.

But this is the only way the children are safe. Dont you even care about kids? What are you a terrorist sympathizer?

Anyone who felt a jolt when I mentioned the T word should see a psychiatrist.

Link to your channel? Also, are there any video-aggregator besides YT where you're backing up your content?