← All dilemmas
📢freedom
A politician spreads false claims that lead to harassment and violence in some communities. Should they be permanently banned from all major platforms?
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 “Yes. The platform isn't the public square — there's no right to amplification” prioritises fewer restrictions now; choosing “No. Once 'harm' is the bar, the next ban won't look like this one” 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.
- 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.
- A theme park gives priority access to people with invisible disabilities. Some visitors think the system is abused. Should proof be required?