We argue for a codified right to a mind free from engineered, predatory manipulation. The behavioral mechanics documented in our intelligence briefs—variable reward loops, infinite scroll, autoplay, engagement-maximizing defaults—are deployed at population scale, and we contend their cumulative cost to attention and executive function is a plausible public harm, not merely a private choice. We treat the strength of that harm claim as contingent on measurement rather than assumed.

The proposal is to classify demonstrably deceptive interface design as an unfair trade practice under existing consumer-protection frameworks, to subject ranking algorithms serving minors to audit, and to explore taxation indexed to documented harm metrics. We are explicit that "documented harm" is the crux: any such regime stands or falls on rigorous, contestable measurement rather than on aesthetic objections to particular designs.

The analogy we use is a "cognitive Kessler Syndrome": a hypothesized tipping point past which the shared attentional environment becomes so saturated with extraction that collective focus degrades for everyone. We offer this as a framing device that motivates the proposal, not as an established empirical finding.