Then they came for spammer license deals, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Windows User.
Then they came to install back doors, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Windows User.
Then they came for my ability to install Linux—and there was no one left to speak for me.
If Lenovo lose customers over this, it may be the case that they won't care, but in that case a competitor will surely swoop in to catch those customers by supplying PCs that run Linux.
In any case, the market should continue to supply machines that run Linux, as long as there is a demand for them. So if you demand a machine that runs Linux, just vote with your wallet!
I think this is very much a sliding scale. And that therefor the quote very much applies.
If (IF) a time comes when the only software available is proprietary, restrictive, invasive and possibly insecure, in a world where software is ubiquitous and often essential, I think that could be bad. The definition of fascism does come to mind.
Microsoft blocking installs of Linux on computers that I own, seems one of those steps to me.
You mean like up to the late 90's when most of us used to pay for software?
At the top of the slope, it's "merely firmware, what is the problem?". At the bottom of the slope are warcrimes and genocide. It is very hard to stop sliding down a slippery slope once you've started.
So when you disallow Linux on a laptop you are very much at the top of the slope. And there is a long way to go. But my, oh my, it sure is slippery.
Because we live in a digital age. More and more so. And in this age, there is no way to have 'checks and balances' without access to the source code of the software. And without checks and balances, it is very hard to have Separation of Powers[1].
Interestingly enough, I've found that survivors of WW2 tend to understand this better than most.
Otherwise, "my friend", one invites analogies to Godwin's law, and rejection out of hand for using a reductio ad Hitlerum.
People make slippery slope arguments all the time, but often (and quoting your [0]), "as a form of fear mongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome."
What was missing, in the recasting of Niemöller's poem, was the 'reasoning ... provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome'.
Certainly bugs in Telegram and the use of the wrong social software among dissidents (or software that unknowingly leaks, or is endemic like windows) has everything to do with how they are spied upon. Many of those dissidents are from ethnic minorities that are targeted or will be targeted.
The holocaust was a terrible thing, but not talking about any road signs to the next genocides to avoid upsetting people isn't the prevention mechanism my history teachers had in mind.
User languagewars is in good company. Orwell compared early dissidents in USSR to chickens in his Animal farm. Jesus compared Kindom of Heaven to mustard seed, himself to wine and bread, redemption to finding a coin and true faith to freaking oil lamp. Plato compared whole human existence to group of dudes sitting in a cave. Socrates compared himself to gadfly.
This is one of the most used literary vehicle. By the best and most famous thinkers of all times.