← All dilemmas
🕊️freedom
Vietare i voli brevi sotto i 500 km ridurrebbe le emissioni, ma penalizzerebbe chi vive in aree remote senza alternative ferroviarie veloci. È giusto?
Vote to reveal how SplitVote voters split.
YOUR CHOICE
OR
Anonymous voting. No account required. Results update in real time.
Why this dilemma matters
These choices ask how much risk a society should accept so people can decide for themselves. Choosing “Sì: il clima non aspetta, chi abita in zone isolate deve adattarsi come tutti gli altri” prioritises fewer restrictions now; choosing “No: una politica verde che scarica i costi sui più vulnerabili non è vera giustizia ambientale” gives more weight to fewer regrets later.
Worth asking yourself
- How much risk is the freedom worth?
- Is the safer option also the more honest one?
More Freedom Dilemmas
- Governments can prevent terrorist attacks by reading everyone's private messages — but there will be zero privacy. No exceptions.
- A politician spreads false claims that lead to harassment and violence in some communities. Should they be permanently banned from all major platforms?
- Vaccines are 99% effective and safe. Should they be legally mandatory for school attendance, even for parents with religious objections?
- A city offers to eliminate all violent crime by installing 24/7 AI surveillance on every street corner and public space.