Is the following as slippery slope.

I am sorry but this entire post, like so many here at LF.com, needs clarification.  Beginning with the typo in the header ("As").  What group is being referred to?  And how does one move past the seemingly obvious ad hominem swipes at the group's credibility to address the complaintant's allegations?  The final sentence makes unsubstantive and presumptuous claims about "the group" which, taken in context, are really quite inflammatory.  But I am at a loss to understand what group is the target of these incendiary charges?  Please, someone clarify this?

Reductio ad hitlerum LOL

I know this one as Godwin's Law: "The longer an internet argument goes on, the higher the probability becomes that something or someone will be compared to Adolf Hitler."

Could reductio ad hitlerum be said to be just a specific form of weak analogy (just like appeal to the moon is a special case of weak analogy)? Could it also be said that reductio ad hitlerum is a specific form of ad hominem (guilt by association)?
My objection is that they are arguing they are LIKE Nazi, not that they are Nazi (surely they imply it and want to exploit the negative connection - therefore ad hominem (guilt by association)). But the argument explicitly says "LIKE Nazi Germany" which explicitly make it an analogy.
Otherwise, if they didn't say "LIKE" but instead said "ARE", wouldn't it then be closer to 
affirming the consequent ?
1)Nazis reported information.
2)Your group reports information.
3)Therefore, you are Nazis." 
Is the "LIKE" vs "ARE" the small detail that differentiates the two fallacies, weak analogy vs affirming the consequent ? 

Otherwise, if they didn't say "LIKE" but instead said "ARE",

How I read it, they are saying they "are like" Nazis, not that they "will be like" if condition 1.2.3... etc.

If you say to a woman "you are like a man" it doesn't mean she is a man. If you say to a man "you are like a man", he will say to you "what do you mean? I AM A MAN".
Anyway, if it means "are" and not like, isn't that a case of affirming the consequent and not a case of analogy? 

Three options:

1) are/is (same)
2) like (analogy)
3) will be/become (used in the slippery slope)

We are dealing with #2 here. The accusation is that they are currently like - an analogy is being made.

affirming the consequent 

If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

If you are like the Nazis (P) then you report information (Q).
you report information (Q)
Therefore, you are like the Nazis (P)

You can argue this, but I don't think you would get much traction because the main issue here is the difference between "reporting information" like Facebook users vs. being "an omnipresent all-seeing, all-knowing group, and its members are informants."

Many times, many fallacies will fit. Going for the biggest flaw in the reasoning is the best place to start.

Οκ,  thanks for the clarification!

First you say the slippery slope is not a fallacy. Then you will reject all fallacies. The next thing you know, you will reject science, including gravity, and walk off a tall building and fall to your death. All because you don't think the slippery slope is a fallacy!

Not necessarily, Dr. Bo. Gravity is essential to slippery slopes. Ergo, those who believe in slippery slopes must also believe in gravity.

How's my logic? ;-)

I never said I was a String theorist.