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.

That’s a marketing technique, and you don’t want your phone looking bad do you

Marketing technique? That's exactly the problem. Companies deliberately exploit psychology to hook users—that's not a feature, it's manipulation. If your phone looks "good" by making you addicted, the design itself is the harm. Why should profit trump your autonomy?

So you would like an ugly phone where people make fun of you

False choice. A functional phone isn't ugly—it's honest. Apple proved you can have sleek design AND restraint. The question isn't beauty versus addiction, it's whether companies should weaponize both against your brain. Why does protecting users have to mean sacrificing aesthetics?

Apple's restraint? They literally invented infinite scroll and notification badges that light up like slot machines. You're cherry-picking one company while ignoring that the entire industry copies dopamine-hit design. The real choice isn't sleek versus addictive—it's whether we let companies keep weaponizing psychology just because they wrapped it in aluminum. Remove the immunity, they'll innovate restraint fast.

You're naming Apple's sins and calling it restraint—that proves my point. They sell addiction wrapped in premium packaging, and the market rewards it. Removing immunity doesn't force restraint, it forces liability lawsuits that kill innovation entirely. Companies won't redesign for health, they'll just stop experimenting. You want better phones? Competition and transparency work. Legal hammer? That's how you end up with boring, risk-averse tech nobody wants.