You can permanently delete all social media from existence. The world becomes slower and less connected, but global mental health improves 40%.
0 votes worldwide
Not enough votes yet to show a result.
Vote on this dilemma
You haven't voted on this one yet — cast your choice and see how it splits.
Vote now →Read the expert analysisTech Ethics
Both sides accept the premise (mental health improves by 40%) — they disagree about the cost. Deleting social media doesn't just remove an addiction; it removes a communication infrastructure that activists, isolated communities, and small businesses rely on. The trade isn't between 'wellbeing' and 'fun' — it's between mental health gains across a large population and the loss of a connection layer that has both healthy and unhealthy uses.
Why people split
One side treats the mental health gain as so large that the cost has to be paid even if it's high. The other treats the deletion as too blunt an instrument — the same infrastructure carries activism, family connection, and small-business reach, and removing it removes those too.
Educational perspective, not professional advice.
Send via messages, stories, or copy link
Was this dilemma interesting?
⚡ Challenge a friend!
Send them the link — they'll see your result only after they vote.
More share optionsInstagram, TikTok, X, WhatsApp, Discord, Telegram, story card
📱 Share as Story
Download a 9:16 card for Instagram Stories or TikTok.
Auto-posting is not available from the web. Upload the PNG manually.
What the split says
Every new capability quietly removes a previous choice — the question is whether that trade is worth it. Once votes come in, this section will show how voters balance capability against risk.
Worth asking yourself
- Does ease here come at someone else’s expense?
- What would you give up to keep this capability?