Apple, however, is still not a sovereign state, and as such must bow to the wishes of actual sovereign states. Sovereign states have proven again and again that they will grab as much power as they can, and doing it insidiously, in the form of a private database of hashes of undesired content, is especially attractive to them.
This is not a hypothetical. For a real-world example look to England where its nation-wide internet blocking system is already used beyond its original scope. Or think of what countries like China will certainly do with such a mechanism. Scope creep, in the form of power grabs by nation states, is a realistic concern, based on vast historical experience, not a fallacy.
Apart from the concern of scope creep, there is also the concern of false positives. When deployed on such a scale, there will undoubtedly be perfectly legimate images being flagged. I'm not happy about my phone containing software that's always vigilant, ready to ruin my life over a false positive.
No. You don't get to control the narrative by saying that. You have to discuss things that could happen when discussing things this invasive.
The slippery slopes being discussed here are not about events and the causes that link them, but about the applications of technology and to a certain extent about laws being used beyond their original mandate. This kind of slippery slope is a logical one.
Thus the technology being used for this mean that it can be used for other things - what kinds of things can it be used for? Are there things that people would like to make illegal or that are illegal now that this technology can be used catch people infringing on these hypothetical laws. Thus - if we allow this technology in our devices now are we opening ourselves up for other potential uses for the technology in the future that will hurt us.
If this argument seems the same to you as the domino theory and that we must take every hypothetical problem when it actually occurs I wonder how you are ever able to plan for any eventuality?
"While this image may be insightful for understanding the character of the fallacy, it represents a misunderstanding of the nature of the causal relations between events. Every causal claim requires a separate argument. Hence, any "slipping" to be found is only in the clumsy thinking of the arguer, who has failed to provide sufficient evidence that one causally explained event can serve as an explanation for another event or for a series of events"
You need to argue things that are actually happening. Appealing to hypotheticals, especially when technically incorrect, serves no one.