No it doesn't. I reject your slippery slope fallacy.
The line must always be drawn somewhere, should YouTube allow neonazi content because any censorship leads to more censorship? Of course not.
The line must always be drawn somewhere, should YouTube allow neonazi content because any censorship leads to more censorship? Of course not.
People aren't starting with axioms and then defining what absolutely will happen. People are discussing trends that appear to happen generally, but there will be exceptions. Going to college leads to a better job is a slippery slope, it doesn't always happen, but going to college is still good advice (and even better advice if one is willing to go into detail about the degree, the costs, the plans at college, and so on).
If we want to reject something as a logical fallacy, we need to consider if the other person's argument hinges on something always happening as some sort of logical proof, or if it hinges on it happening only at or above some threshold. If the first case, pointing out a slippery slope argument is a valid counter, but in the second case, it isn't and instead leads to two people talking past each other (one arguing X happens often enough to be a concern, the other arguing that X doesn't always happen, both statements that could be true).
I'll link another comment of mine which expands on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44200533