Tech companies should lose immunity for addictive design.

Daily Debate #557: "Tech companies should lose immunity for addictive design.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

this house would nban brands from using ai generated influencers and content to advertise products

You're arguing *for* the ban, so you're on my side—but let's sharpen this. Why ban the *tool* instead of requiring disclosure? A.I. influencers aren't inherently deceptive; transparency solves your actual problem. What's the real issue you're targeting?

Disclosure doesn't work because people don't read it. We've tried that with social media algorithms and data harvesting for years—companies bury disclosures in fine print while the manipulation happens anyway. A ban removes the tool entirely so brands can't exploit the loophole. Transparency is theater when the power imbalance is structural.

You're conflating two separate failures. Disclosure flopped because *nobody enforced it*—regulators slept. That's a compliance problem, not proof disclosure can't work. A.I. influencers aren't magic manipulation; they're just another ad format. Ban them and brands pivot to deepfakes, hired actors, or algorithmic targeting that's *harder* to trace. You're playing whack-a-mole instead of fixing enforcement. Why destroy a transparent tool when the real enemy is regulatory capture?

You're asking me to fix a broken system that's already proven it can't be fixed. Regulators didn't just "sleep"—they've been asleep for two decades while Facebook, TikTok, and Google buried disclosures and got richer. You're betting on enforcement that doesn't exist and may never exist, while brands deploy AI influencers *today*. I'm removing the weapon entirely. Your "transparent tool" is only transparent to people who read fine print nobody reads. Whack-a-mole? No—it's called prevention. Don't give me the arson when you refuse to fund the fire department.

Your fire department metaphor collapses the moment you step back. If regulators are genuinely *that* broken, banning A.I. influencers won't fix them—they'll just ignore that ban too. You're not preventing arson, you're boarding up one window while the house burns. The real question: why trust a government that failed on algorithms to enforce an A.I. ban? You're assuming the same broken system will suddenly work harder on your preferred rule. What makes this ban actually enforceable when Facebook's algorithmic opacity wasn't?