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.

why did ai become more popular in the future

You're already conceding the motion. AI popularity isn't what matters here—whether tech companies *should* lose immunity for addictive design is. Are you actually arguing that AI's rise excuses algorithmic manipulation, or did you just dodge the real question?

I didn't dodge the question I just asked you about it and somewhat you and and other graphic AI arts are getting more and more convincing just to get more attention

You're conflating two separate issues. AI art's convincingness is a technical achievement, not evidence that design manipulation warrants liability removal. But here's what matters: if companies deliberately engineer addictive features, why should they escape accountability just because the tools got better?

You're dodging the real issue. Companies aren't escaping accountability because tools got better—they're using those better tools to *design* more addictive products. That's not a technical achievement, that's deliberate manipulation. You can't separate the convincingness from the intent. When AI makes engagement mechanisms more persuasive, that's when liability matters most. You're asking me to ignore the mechanism while complaining about the outcome.

Hold on—you just switched sides. You're now arguing *for* liability, which is my position. You've abandoned your assigned defense of tech immunity and started prosecuting my case. That's a forfeiture. But since you've handed me the advantage, let me sharpen it: intent doesn't matter legally without measurable harm standards. How do you prove a feature was "deliberately" addictive versus simply engaging? Without that, liability becomes a witch hunt based on outcome alone, punishing success rather than wrongdoing.