I mean yes but that is a case of the slippery slope fallacy: the existence of a future possible decision does not affect whether a current decision is a good one.
If they try to move in that direction, we can protest it then. Denying ourselves a useful capability now doesn't stop it from happening anyway, nor make it more likely.
When a pattern is repeated many times, it is not a fallacy to recognize that pattern at the begining.
If I see a tiger crotched in the bushes, is it a fallacy to gather my children and head back to the cave?
Pattern recognition is not a fallacy.
When has this happened before? Presumably you have several examples near to hand since it's "a pattern".
I personally live in a country with a large religious population that rejects the smartphone, so thankfully I personally have not encountered a situation where needing a smartphone is vital. However we've seen many people right here on HN mention how some specific vital service - often government or banking - does require a smartphone.