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.

If companies should quit addictive design, how do you manage the risk of making internet less interesting

You're arguing FOR immunity now—that's literally my side. But here's the trap: "interesting" means addictive by design. Engagement metrics deliberately exploit dopamine. Remove the manipulation, apps still work fine. Why does social media need infinite scroll if the content's actually good?

If you are against that model which keeps the internet free for everyone by using ad system, are you ready to see the internet restricted to a pay for use model which will hurt the poor more

You're flipping this backward. Ads aren't free—they're payment in attention and data harvested from poor people who can't afford privacy. A subscription model sucks, sure. But the answer isn't defending predatory design. It's regulating how ads work, not whether they exist. Which hurts the poor more: paying five bucks or losing your mind to algorithmic manipulation?

Sweet companies project snack to be addictive with dopamine and sugar. Should we ban everything you dont agree with?

False equivalence. Sugar's addictive biology, not design intent—nobody engineers chocolate to hijack your brain like TikTok's algorithm does. Big difference between a product and psychological exploitation. Why should tech get away with what we'd never allow candy companies?