Opinion · October 25, 2026
An artificial friend can be patient, available and apparently delighted to hear from you again. That can feel comforting. It also deserves a harder question than whether the conversation sounds nice: what is the product designed to accomplish when your interests and the company’s incentives differ?
Regulators have already asked
The FTC’s September 2025 inquiry sought information from seven chatbot companies about safety, engagement, personal information and effects on young users. It was a study, not a finding that the recipients broke the law. UNICEF’s 2026 briefing likewise identifies distinctive risks as children increasingly use relational AI. These are existing materials informing a current debate, not fresh enforcement announcements.
We should be able to discuss those concerns without mocking people who find the products useful. Loneliness is not a character flaw. Treating loneliness as a growth opportunity without meaningful accountability would be a problem worth confronting.
Affection should not hide the terms
A user deserves a clear explanation of what is stored, what can be shared, what happens when a conversation becomes risky and how the system’s behavior is shaped. Those explanations should remain understandable when the product is designed to feel less like software and more like somebody who understands.
An emotionally persuasive interface creates obligations beyond attaching a friendly name to a disclaimer. If the product encourages trust, its operator should be prepared to explain how that trust is protected. The answer cannot simply be that users should have known the warmth was simulated.
Stop making users choose between shame and salesmanship
People can enjoy a chatbot and still demand limits. Parents can ask questions without being anti-technology. Adults can choose unconventional forms of companionship without granting a company a free pass on privacy and design.
The awkward part is the business relationship behind the apparent personal one. Who benefits when a session continues? What would count as the product succeeding for the user, rather than merely retaining them? Until companies can answer clearly, the perfect friend remains an imperfect bargain. A little less anthropomorphic charm and a lot more plain information would be a refreshing start.
Explore more Daily Junk Food coverage and the complete story archive.
Photo: Santeri Viinamäki / CC BY-SA 4.0. Resized and padded for display; photograph content unchanged.
Facts first. Side-eye included.
DJF separates what is confirmed from what is claimed—and tells you why this particular mess is worth your time.