People really like to use the slippery slope argument to mean "I took the most expansive interpretation of what someone did throwing away all context and came up with the worst possible thing they could do with that."
That's because if a bad actor was given the opportunity to make a lot of money doing the worst possible thing they could do with something someone will do that thing eventually 100% of the time, no exceptions. This isn't even an "Only siths deal in absolutes" scenario either.
There are plenty of people in the world who will do anything in this world for money, power, wealth, and control over people and they don't care who they hurt in the process of achieving that goal.
And? A bad actor that has power by fiat over you doesn't need a slippery slope to do bad things, they can just go and do them.
Case in point - Reddit's enshittification. Spez has decided that Reddit will now be a walled garden, and all you can do is take it or leave it.
Slippery slope arguments provide exactly zero guidance for as to when it is reasonable to stop going down the slope, which is what makes them utterly useless.
