A city offers to eliminate all violent crime by installing 24/7 AI surveillance on every street corner and public space.
3 votes worldwide
Results based on anonymous votes from users worldwide.
Vote on this dilemma
You haven't voted on this one yet — cast your choice and see how it splits.
Vote now →Send via messages, stories, or copy link
Read the expert analysisPolitical Philosophy
This pairs a maximum-strength benefit (total elimination of violent crime) with a maximum-strength cost (constant AI surveillance of all public space). The harms of violent crime are concentrated on a minority; the costs of surveillance fall evenly on everyone. The question is whether the trade is acceptable when the math seems to favor surveillance but the principle seems to favor refusal.
Why people split
One side treats the elimination of violent crime as so dramatic a benefit that any privacy cost it requires has to be reconsidered from scratch. The other treats the precedent of full public-space surveillance as locking in a relationship between citizen and state that's irreversible — the data will be used for things that aren't violent crime, eventually.
Educational perspective, not professional advice.
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
With 67% choosing “No. I will not live in a surveillance state” (3 total votes), this result leans toward collective safety among SplitVote voters. That does not make that option correct; it shows which cost they are currently more willing to accept.
Worth asking yourself
- Whose freedom does this protect, and whose does it cost?
- Would you accept the rule if it applied to you?