Big Tech judges shouldn't preside over Big Tech cases anymore.

Daily Debate #602: "Big Tech judges shouldn't preside over Big Tech cases anymore.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Hannah Arendt.

Big Tech Judges have proven themselves unable to preside over Big Tech cases with sound judgement. The risk of corruption or payoff by large companies is a realistic and prevalent threat that is held over the heads of those who feel themselves wronged by big tech, or are found in the ituation of taking up a legal battle against the Big Tech Companies.

You're assuming judges are bought and juries are stupid. But if Big Tech corruption is so "prevalent," where are the convictions? Where are the bribery scandals? You're trading a real problem—judges lacking tech expertise—for an imaginary one. A judge who doesn't understand algorithms isn't corrupt, just incompetent. And removing them doesn't solve that; it just means specialized tech judges who've worked at Google and Meta make the calls instead. You've actually made the corruption problem worse, not better.