SciHub is ultimately helping people violate copyright laws. I personally think that science should have more open access, and I assume that many who work at the

SciHub is ultimately helping people violate copyright laws. I personally think that science should have more open access, and I assume that many who work at these payment processors share my sentiment. But I think payment processors want to avoid legal liability — legal fees and settlements (or even criminal charges) are expensive. > When is a slippery slope a fallacy and when is it not? Wikipedia has a section on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_... In my opinion, slippery slope is a fallacy when there is not a clear demarcation. If the US government says "we need to torture in exigent situations" I worry about slippery slope because it's easy for the definition of "exigent" to change when convenient. On the other hand, if the US government said "we use torture for people who have been in contact with ISIS and have been convicted of murder," then the criteria are provable facts that create a clear line. I would still disagree with the use of torture, but my disagreement would be on ethical grounds, not that there is a slippery slope. If payment processors say "we won't process payments for platforms who knowingly host content that advocates for violence against a race of people" — then it's not a slippery slope. When a line is clearly demarcated, there is a mechanism for changes in the policy to be examined (and just because a policy changes that doesn't mean that there is a slippery slope; sometimes changes are justified!). One could argue that the line could be capriciously moved; however, I would want some sort of evidence or justification that it might be.