That's what's called a slippery-slope argument. It's also a fallacy. It was reductio ad absurdum, not slippery slope. Slippery slope would be "If we let Apple

That's what's called a slippery-slope argument. It's also a fallacy. It was reductio ad absurdum, not slippery slope. Slippery slope would be "If we let Apple do this, the next step will be having to be 'professional enough' to be legally permitted to start a startup", which is not what the gp said.