Sorry, but no. There are many cites available, but this may be one of the easiest to understand:
Ref:
Informal fallacy
(Note: emphasis added)
Um, as your citation says, logical
FORM. That's precisely what I said. Both formal and informal fallacies are logical fallacies, which is why both are discussed in
logic textbooks
But I'm not really sure what you hope to accomplish by continuing to argue this point. Neither type of fallacy is good.
They don't have to be "extremely high" (an undefined value, btw) to hold true. They need merely exist.
No, just the mere existence of examples is not sufficient grounds for a reasonable slippery slope argument. There has to be a definite pattern of a chain of events that almost always happens.
Your argument would appear to be that, because "the percentage of those cases isn't ``extremely high``, then the odds of Apple's new technology being misused likewise are not "extremely high." Even were your former assertion true, that's a reverse hasty generalization fallacy.
No, I'm arguing that unless you have a high percentage of cases showing the same specific chain of events (leading from something innocent to something horrible), then you have no rational grounds to assert that it's extremely likely that Apple's CSAM detection mesasures will cause a chain of events leading to totalitarian governments using it to spy on citizens and arrest them for anti-government material, etc.
That's a hasty generalization (informal) fallacy. Using it to make your point is a false equivalence (logical) fallacy.
No, it's a slippery slope fallacy (the receiving of the money leads to a series of negative results culminating in one's life being shipwrecked). Hasty generalization is a conclusion drawn on a very small, insufficient amount of evidence, which isn't the case in my example. You're proving why the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is very true.
Furthermore: You're positioning your opponents' arguments as "Apple's new technology will be abused,"
That's precisely what many have said.
rather than "Apple's new technology is subject to abuse," the latter of which is the true argument on the part of security and privacy groups. Not certain whether that's a "no middle ground" or "straw man" fallacy.
ANY technology is subject to abuse. I don't think there's a single person on this forum that would disagree with that. But what we don't do is avoid technology simply because it could be abused. Instead we put safeguards to protect against abuse.
european-pirateparty.eu
