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.

The basis of said design is really not theirs, you do not bake a cake if you bought one from a bakery and placed a cherry on top.

You're confusing innovation with theft. Tech companies didn't "buy" the psychology—they discovered it through billions in R&D. A bakery buys premade cake; Meta built the entire oven. Where's your proof they stole the blueprint?

Oh, I apologize. But can we agree on what the criteria of additive design? It's confusing whether we're talking of a minor change or an overhaul.

Fair point. Addictive design means deliberately engineering features to hijack dopamine loops—infinite scroll, notification badges, streaks. Not minor tweaks; systematic manipulation built into the core product architecture. What specific feature do you think crosses that line?

Oh, I had misread it as adding a minor detail than claiming ownership. Nevertheless, the additive design should receive no immunity for it presents issues towards its user's psychology by inducing a Fear of missing out feeling by design.

Hold on—you're conflating "causing psychological effects" with "deserving liability." Every product that works does that. A thriller film induces fear. A sports league creates FOMO around games. Should we sue Netflix and the NFL? You're asking to criminalize persuasion itself, which kills innovation. Why should tech alone face immunity loss?