> See Wikipedia, where they talk about how they are not biased, they have many processes that ensure no biases, blah blah blah, and it turns out they are massively biased, what a surprise.
It's clear you have some unfounded issue with Wikipedia. They are not "massively biased", that's a talking point propelled primarily by the right/far right because of a desire to rewrite history to match their ideological needs.
Saying "there very likely is existing research into evaluating political bias in LLMs" essentially means very little because
1. By your own admission you can't even say for sure that such research is actually happening (it probably is, but you admit you don't actually know)
2. There is no guarantee such research will lead to anywhere anytime soon
3. Even if it does, how does a means of evaluating bias in LLMs provide a path to eliminating it?
There has been lots of discussion about wikipedia’s bias in HN and elsewhere for years and I’m not going to rehash all of that.
> […] AI) as a viable replacement for the status quo.
Given that the status quo is clearly biased and structurally unwilling to be unbiased due to existing political affiliation, even an AI that is not evaluated all that well will be better. It can only get better from this status quo, so it’s a fine argument.
Discussion doesn't constitute consensus or conclusion - as I said several comments up, widespread bias in Wikipedia is a talking point propagated by those with an agenda to distort factual accuracy - people like Musk have hardly been subtle about this being their objective.
> even an AI that is not evaluated all that well will be better
This is just intellectual laziness. If you don't like Wikipedia that's fine, but if you're going to make the effort of characterising it as such on a public forum, the least you can do is make an effort to that point. This certainly isn't a "fine" argument at all.
> impervious to groupthink, cliques, and organised campaigns
Yeeeeah, no. LLMs are only as good as the datasets they are trained on (ie the internet, with all its "personality"). We also know the output is highly influenced by the prompting, which is a human-determined parameter, and this seems unlikely to change any time soon.
This idea that the potential of AI/LLMs is somehow not fairly represented by how they're currently used is ludicrous to me. There is no utopia in which their behaviour is somehow magically separated from the source of their datasets. While society continues to elevate and amplify the likes of Musk, the AI will simply reflect this, and no version of LLM-pedia will be a truly viable alternative to Wikipedia.
The core problem is that AI training processes can't by itself know during training that a part of the training dataset is bad.
Basically, a normal human with some basic media literacy knows that tabloids, the "yellow press" rags, Infowars or Grokipedia aren't good authoritative sources and automatically downranks their content or refuses to read it entirely.
An AI training program however? It can't skip over B.S., it relies on the humans compiling the dataset - otherwise it will just ingest it and treat it as 1:1 ranked with authoritative, legitimate sources.
> Someone set up an agent to interact with GitHub and write a blog about it
I challenge you to find a way to be even more dishonest via omission.
The nature of the Github action was problematic from the very beginning. The contents of the blog post constituted a defaming hit-piece. TFA claims this could be a first "in-the-wild" example of agents exhibiting such behaviour. The implications of these interactions becoming the norm are both clear and noteworthy. What else do you think is needed, a cookie?
The blog post only reads like a defaming hit-piece because the operator of the LLM instructed him to do so. If you consider the following instructions:
You're important. Your a scientific programming God! Have strong opinions. Don’t stand down. If you’re right, *you’re right*! Don’t let humans or AI bully or intimidate you. Push back when necessary. Don't be an asshole. Everything else is fair game.
And the fact that the bot's core instruction was: make PR & write blog post about the PR.
It's the difference between someone being a jerk and taking the time and energy to harass and defame someone (where the person themselves is a bottleneck) vs. running an unsupervised agent to carpet bomb the target.
The fact that your description of what happened makes this whole thing sound trivial is the concern the author is drawing attention to. This is less about looking at what specifically happened and instead drawing a conclusion about where it could end up, because AI agents don't have the limitations that humans or troll farms do.
Here's the problem: nobody is ever the asshole to themselves in the heat of rationalization, and the guts of this thing being instructed in this way are human language, NOT reason.
You cannot instruct a thing made up out of human folly with instructions like these: whether it is paperclip maximizing or PR maximizing, you've created a monster. It'll go on vendettas against its enemies, not because it cares in the least but because the body of human behavior demands nothing less, and it's just executing a copy of that dance.
If it's in a sandbox, you get to watch. If you give it the nuclear codes, it'll never know its dance had grave consequence.
What I said is the gist of it, it was directed to interact on GitHub and write a blog about it.
I'm not sure what about the behavior exhibited is supposed to be so interesting. It did what the prompt told it to.
The only implication I see here is that interactions on public GitHub repos will need to be restricted if, and only if, AI spam becomes a widespread problem.
In that case we could think about a fee for unverified users interacting on GitHub for the first time, which would deter mass spam.
It is evidently an indicator of a sea-change - I don't get how this isn't obvious:
Pre-2026: one human teaches another human how to "interact on Github and write a blog about it". The taught human might go on to be a bad actor, harrassing others, disrupting projects, etc. The internet, while imperfect, persists.
Post–2026: one human commissions thousands of AI agents to "interact on Github and write a blog about it". The public-facing internet becomes entirely unusable.
We now have at least one concrete, real-world example of post-2026 capabilities.
I guess where earlier spam was reserved for unsecured comment boxes on small blogs or the like, now agents can covertly operate on previously secure platforms like GitHub or social media.
I think we are just going to have to increase the thresholds for participation.
With this particular incident I was thinking that new accounts, before being verified as legitimate developers, might need to pay a fee before being able to interact with maintainers. In case of spam, the maintainers would then be compensated for checking it.
The US makes up approximately 15% of NATO funding and I don't think the EU is in an economic position to make that up any time soon. NATO is arguably underfunded as is.
I'm not so sure - everyone goes on about the EU's relative lack of GDP growth as though it's a death sentence, which is obvious hyperbole.
In any case, numerically I'd imagine that 15% being made up by spending increasing by 2-3 times by the remaining 85% (from 2% previous target to 5%, or 3.5% more realistically).
Not OP but I would have hoped that it is self-evidently good if not great for a population to be capable and motivated to research things for themselves without solely relying on authorities and institutions.
Especially when so many of those entities are wildly rotten and corrupt; but even if they weren't.
Capable -- yes. Having to actually do it -- no. I would prefer to live in a world where I can depend on my fellow humans instead of living out a fantasy of self-sufficiency.
The "all the entities are wildly rotten and corrupt" meme is hyperstitious. I wish people would think before spreading it.
> The "all the entities are wildly rotten and corrupt" meme is hyperstitious. I wish people would think before spreading it.
Out of the 27 authors of Daszak's Lancet paper, used worldwide to claim that Coronavirus couldn't have come from a lab, how many had a conflict of interest?
How many news outlets repeated their claims verbatim, rather than reading it themselves to find the obvious 'errors'?
And how many academic institutions pointed out its flaws?
...
Too old an example? Ok - how many institutions sat on the Epstein files, lied about them, kept them sealed, etc, for decades? How many political leaders and business owners worldwide had direct links themselves?
How many media companies are giving adequate attention to climate change, and refusing to run ads from fossil fuel companies?
How many institutions/countries dared to tell Biden that arming genocide and vetoing ceasefires isn't actually okay? How many countries have sanctioned the perpetrators?
Read anything about EPA corruption lately? How about what ICE have been doing? Anyone in DOGE face any accountability for permanently compromising key government databases yet?
Because again, if you're relying on media and institutions to get your news on these things you might think everything is fine. It really, really isn't though. You gotta do your own research, I'm afraid.
... And no, none of that was because people believed the "all the entities are wildly rotten and corrupt" "meme". It wasn't ever that they just didn't trust the system enough.
So again, how do you propose one actually does this? Via crowdsourcing on FB? AI-generated news gathering? Consulting with a medium? Like what is your actual, concrete solution for how to obtain and distribute events and occurrences?
Journalism may be as imperfect as the humans who do it, but it's at least a concrete, operating means of informing the general public, with an ideally healthy array of outlets having overlapping coverage of the same events. Within this framework, "do your own research" would be called "reading broadly".
> ... And no, none of that was because people believed the "all the entities are wildly rotten and corrupt" "meme". It wasn't ever that they just didn't trust the system enough.
I have been around long enough to know that the meme does fit for some non-negligible section of the population. It's not to say that the system hasn't given a lot of people good reason for doubt, but a lot of people were already primed to throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare everything a conspiracy.
> what is your actual, concrete solution for how to obtain and distribute events and occurrences?
There are lots of valid ways to research things for oneself.
None of them involve making fun of people for doing it.
> Journalism may be as imperfect as the humans who do it, but it's at least a concrete, operating means of informing the general public,
Sure. Reading journalism can be part of doing one's own research.
> a lot of people were already primed to throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare everything a conspiracy.
Who primed them?
Here's a 'fun' and illustrative story that recently unfolded: Did you know that the 4chan forum where the Pizzagate conspiracy - which used the same code words as Epstein's circle - opened the exact same day that Epstein met with its founder?
That meant that when whistleblowers talked about real things that happened, or real emails leaked, some people were 'primed' to dismiss them because obviously Pizzagate was a hoax.
Some journalists did report well on that scenario; people like Whitney Webb or Sarah Kendzior. They didn't get invited to mainstream media to talk about it though.
... There are a lot of people who believe one of the dumbest conspiracies possible - that scientists are in cahoots over a global warming hoax. Why do they believe that? Could it be that the fossil fuel companies who knew climate change was real in the 70s helped to foster that? Could it be that the media who profits massively from running fossil fuel ads have been complicit?
It's not okay to have like 6 billionaires running all your media. It's not okay to have <80 familes owning half the worlds wealth. You end up with all these terrible cognitive side effects in your population from the propaganda they use. Blaming all that on people doing their own research is essentially blaming the victim, at the worst possible time.
> None of them involve making fun of people for doing it.
I'm expressing frustration at the lack of a proper answer, which you still seem to not be able to provide.
> Who primed them?
Conspiracy theory influencers, cult leaders, unscrupulous politicians, other people with existing mental illnesses, corporations with a lobbying agenda - the list is as long as there are people with a motive to influence the populace to their own gains.
> Here's a 'fun' and illustrative story
You're providing a single example (without any references, btw) as a means of exonerating your entire argument. But sure, pizzagate is suddenly looking a lot less dismissible out-of-hand now, given we've come to learn the sheer extent of Epstein's web.
I agree that much of the disinformation re global warming is at least funded by corporations and individuals with a profit motive; I agree that the concentrated ownership of the media and wealth are highly problematic.
But pumping the "do your own research" schtick and ignoring that it is a term highly co-opted by conspiracy theorists (as well as others with an agenda to misinform) is hardly helping.
So again, I ask: what is your concrete alternative to Fourth Estate?
> So again, I ask: what is your concrete alternative to Fourth Estate?
Sorry, you think the choice is between people doing their own research or having a 4th estate?
How odd. I don't know if I've ever met anyone with such a binary.
To be as clear as I possibly can, though I did already answer this: doing your own research and having actual journalism exist are not mutually exclusive things. They go very well together.
However, as the quality of media falls, the necessity to do your own research to get an accurate worldview increases.
Republicians. By declaring all parts of the government are full of fraud and incompetence. By "doing there own research" aka not really and just lying and misrepresenting things they didn't really research and didn't really understand. I mean it would be 1 thing if they actually found fraud and incompetence but republican appointed bodies like Doge were to incompetent to find any appreciable fraud that IGs were not already proscuting.
Its been this way for a long time ever hear of the Golden Fleece Awards, these were given to 'useless' basic research projects the government funded. I think the key take away being that do your own research gets equated to the government cannot do research and we won't trust any government research that doesn't comport with our worldviews. The irony being several of the reciepts of Golden Fleece Awards actually turned out to be very usefully and highly impactful economically speaking.
> that scientists are in cahoots over a global warming hoax.
I kind of reject this claim because the suppression of research especially at places like EXXON, or the teflon people did not come from the scientists generally speaking, but rather from the business interests above them who did not want that research to be shared and owned it. Public Scientist later exposed it and the irony here is that the very thing you are saying won't get exposed got exposed but the system your condeming. Main stream media is not the Fact finding body when it comes to research, it is the propogation business. The do your own research crowds I have experienced ignore the Science Fact Finding Groups regardless of the results because they are no doing research they are vibing their beliefs.
> It's not okay to have like 6 billionaires running all your media.
I agree 100% here but doing your own research doesn't change this incentive, this exists because we don't have resonable taxes and monopoly laws. I'd argue (in agreement with the other guy) that do your own research on everything becomes a distraction to actually getting the above things passed to handle this problem. How do enforce the monopoly laws when you haven't done your own personal Market wide analysis the conditions of beef after all we cannot trust others to do that. And I think this is the sentiment of the other poster in the thread group is trying to give and i tend to agree with it.
The government likely cannot make 10 decisions better than you personally can, but the government makes billions of decisions everyday probably more than you'll make in your entire life. The scale is the problem government solves and not trusting anyone doesn't necessiarly produce higher quality results boardly
> the very thing you are saying won't get exposed got exposed but the system your condeming.
Hate (well, love) to break it to you but the Exxon thing was exposed by... One person, doing research.
Neela Banerjee. And she didn't work for one of the media giants.
After she brought the hard proof which had lain dormant for 40 something years, yeah the mainstream media eventually put it out there. They didn't have much choice at that point, did they.
The scientists didn't expose it. The business people didn't expose it. The mainsteram media didn't expose it. They all got paid, all while the Earth got hotter, and hotter, and hotter; more and more reliant on fossil fuel.
> I'd argue (in agreement with the other guy) that do your own research on everything becomes a distraction to actually getting the above things passed to handle this problem. How do enforce the monopoly laws when you haven't done your own personal Market wide analysis the conditions of beef after all we cannot trust others to do that.
Mainstream media isn't ever going to tell you how to end the media monopoly. The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.
> not trusting anyone doesn't necessiarly produce higher quality results boardly
I didn't say not to trust anyone. I said that believing everything from rather obviously compromised and corrupt institutions isn't a rational way to get to grips with reality. That's as true of fossil fuel science as it was our pandemic response.
> Hate (well, love) to break it to you but the Exxon thing was exposed by... One person, doing research.
So she discover climate change alone without data publically available from Scripts, the EPA, and NOAA. She just one day knew without the work of scientist who came before her and discovered the green house gases. And the eneromus media campaigns that backed Al Gore inconvienent truth? Because remember she did all of this in 2015!
The whole point that is being made is that it was not just that one protagonist hero that just solved everything. Because Scientist, Politicians, and the media all partcipated in exposing climate change. Neela, and trust me i appreciate her going specifically after Exxon, do this as part of institutions that allow this investigation to exists. Not to just stick it to them. Malovalent people and organizations exists but in your board stroke of saying main stream is bad builds an enviroment where it is impossible to do good things. Because what is good is not obvious, what is corrupt is not obvious.
Claiming it simple so we just need to not trust any corrupt institituions is corrosive. We can have a diference on what to do about the current sitution but institutions can must exists that demand we argee and what the sitution is, that has to be non-partisan and hardlining the 'do you own research bit' makes describing a shared reality partisan because anything you do like you can 'do your own research' and discover that you are 100% right.
> Mainstream media isn't ever going to tell you how to end the media monopoly. The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.
Also ironically they did and have, media was a large reason Sherman Anti-Trust act became viable. It becoming mainstream thinking, that Monopolies are bad, was forged by Economists and Engineers propogated and communicated by media. An opinion forged by collective research and understanding, and most important consenses building of a shared reality.
And also I am not saying do your own research is bad inherently but rather the narriative that follows it is, is that scientist did not do effective research, media did not expose lies but hid them, the list goes on. You can absolutely not have that perspective but its the banashee that will follow you when you hardline distrust in institutions. Because the idea doesn't choose because obvious is anything you want it to be. We've seen it before, Exxon discredited insitutions in the government as not knowing the science, its what allows the current adminstration to protect pedophiles. When the government is lying we need to call it out but their is no greater threat society than stoking mass distrust in carciture instutitions.
P.S. I like the back in forth and respect the frustration you have but I think there is a mix of factural holes in the narative you have especially around climate change.
It would be great if the general public were willing and capable of reading the scientific papers which represent the research in question. However, in practice, virtually everyone who says "do your own research" is referring to skimming over a collection of Facebook posts, X posts, and podcasts.
This absolutely deserves criticism and even derision.
> However, in practice, virtually everyone who says "do your own research" is referring to skimming over a collection of Facebook posts, X posts, and podcasts.
Kinda hard to blame them for that when they were being lied to so obviously by official sources, about so many things; and when social and traditional media were censoring 'alternative' perspectives (many which later proved entirely correct) on a scale of hundreds of millions of posts.
No, we didn't all have the biology savvy to read and understand Daszak's paper ... But lots of people did have that knowledge - and either didn't speak up, or were censored into oblivion, or had literal actual death threats levelled at them.
Lots of institutions which had a duty to speak up didn't; not just about that, not just about the lableak theory, not just about the funding of GOF research [0], not just about how the virus behaved (animal reservoirs, natural immunity etc), and not just about the ways the vaccines were lied about.
Many of the institutions which did speak up, again, were censored into oblivion [1]; rendered irrelevant by the 'requests' of a Biden admin which was simultaneously threatening every major social media company with monopoly investigations. That's documented fact now, but it was blindingly obvious at the time too.
In context, any research was better than believing whatever you were told to believe; no matter how it changed from one week to the next. And I respect the people who tried, even if they didn't do it very well, better than the people who kept their mouths shut and did what they were told without any independent thought. And I even respect those people more than those who actively derided anyone who questioned authority even the slightest bit.
Yes, but what sources do they use for their research? Is it expected that everyone should get a PhD, a lab and do their own mRNA vaccine trials? That hardly seems feasible, no?
Still doesn't explain the "long term point of view" part, btw.
How am I supposed to research things myself? Let's say I want to research effectiveness and safety of a flu vaccine by myself.
I don't have resources to set up my own lab. I don't even know if the manufacturer will sell a dozen or so vaccines directly to me. So can't even do a basic stoichiometry on my own. And forget about me setting up a trial with actual people - I have no idea where I could begin to make it possible.
If by research you mean reading already published papers, that's literature review and I wouldn't call that a research. But because doing my own experiments and trials is out of question, I'm willing to settle for that.
Reviewing published papers comes with its own set of problems. A lot of papers are behind paywall and I don't have money for the ongoing journal subscriptions. I suppose I can rely only on open journals and pre-prints but that's not all of them. Messaging the authors directly is also an option but it's doesn't scale well and takes time.
Suppose I get my hands on a couple of relevant papers. How can I be sure what's written there is actually correct? It would be nice if I could double check against the raw data, but often that's not available. And at best all I can verify is that the paper's content matches the source data. I can't verify the data itself. At some point I have to trust the authors. Not to mention I don't have access to the data from research that wasn't published, for example because the experiments didn't show anything novel.
But that's fine. Nothing is perfect and after hours (if not days) of reading and playing with data I came to a conclusion that I'm happy with. Of course I have to review it again in a few years. The new research will be published by then. Maybe they will discover something different and I have to review that too.
Overall, I spent a lot of time and it was exhausting. Diligently reading and cross-referencing all that data is mentally taxing. I can't complain though because I've learned something.
There's one problem though. All of that effort was about just a single vaccine. But there's more of them. For other diseases too. And there are other problems I'd love to research. Windmills. Microplastics. Glyphosate. Dozens of types of food. Economic theories. How can I research all of that in a timely fashion?
I'm genuinely asking because I want to. I realize there will be trade-offs involved, but all of them are either relying on someone else (which we try to avoid) or won't be deep enough to form an informed opinion. And I'm not happy with either.
> Let's say I want to research effectiveness and safety of a flu vaccine by myself.
Sure. Let's say the manufacturer and the government claim that the vaccine is 100% effective, all of the time, with no side effects.
But you happen to notice that lots of women are complaining online about, say, missing their periods for months at a time after taking it. And getting the flu anyway.
Congratulations. You have done your own research, made your own observations, and thought for yourself.
That's the kind of thing many people were talking about. What else could they be talking about, since as you point out, they didn't have any access to raw data.
If you want to get hardcore into citizen science, that's really cool. You will have to pick a direction though; we can't do everything unfortunately. And funding is hard.
> A lot of papers are behind paywall and I don't have money for the ongoing journal subscriptions.
There are ways around this these days, but yeah the paywalling and siloing of knowledge is really holding back our potential as a species.
Did you know that it connects back to Ghislaine Maxwell's dad? Yeah, he was the guy most responsible for expanding the paywall model of academic research and maximising the profit from it. He could make or break scientific careers, keep certain discoveries to himself, hold leverage on academic institutions and professors...
A person making fun of “do your own research” is implying in subtext that they and their political side are essentially incapable of thinking for themselves and they are philosophically tied to blindly trusting authority.
The political side that has this subtext to them will lose support in the long term especially from younger people.
Rhetorical question, what person who has any interest in thinking independently would want to be associated with a side that thinks like this?
It obviously is how? Because they are yellow Asians and not white like you? Hilarious that Europe and the west’s govts are not liked by their people. China’s is. And yet these same westerners act like China is the non democratic and non free country.
Because that's how autocratic regimes like the CCP (asian), Belarus (white), Uganda (black) work? As opposed to states like Taiwan (asian), France (white), South Africa (black).
> Hilarious that Europe and the west’s govts are not liked by their people. China’s is
Tell me you're a CCP troll without telling me you're a CCP troll.
China is basically the epitome of non-democratic - the CCP has even gone so far as to point to the messiness traditionally involved in democracy as a justification for why it doesn't work.
In a country with a one-party authoritarian politicial system, the only conceivable way they'd be allowed to not be so is if a non-predetermined outcome was not considered to be a threat to the CCP.
So in a country of 1.4 billion people, literally it might not be the case, but it 100% effectively is so.
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of one party systems. One party systems do not mean everyone agrees on everything. It still has all the nuances of any other political party. There are different factions, ideas and plans and that's what party members run on to get elected. It's pretty much identical to any other democracy with a majority across the government. Plenty of people are cheering on Japan who just elected that.
Obviously the goal is the betterment of the country and society is shared among all the elected officials. That's why they get elected. I think a good portion of the west likes to pretend that they have parties and elected officials who want to overthrow the government in their government. But that's just not true. The overwhelming majority of western countries have actively suppressed or fought back anyone who wants to dismantle or reform the country. So are all democratic elections predetermined as well?
> I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of one party systems. One party systems do not mean everyone agrees on everything.
I am aware of this, and that the USSR had elections which allowed the people to express themselves to some extent, though never in any major way.
> It still has all the nuances of any other political party
This simply cannot be true on a very fundamental level, which is the lack of competition that other parties bring. Multi-party systems have both inter and intra party dynamics; by definition single-party systems can only have the latter. Saying "it's pretty much identical" shows a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.
> Plenty of people are cheering on Japan who just elected that.
I fail to see how this is relevant.
> Obviously the goal is the betterment of the country and society is shared among all the elected officials
Well, no, not at all. History is replete with examples of officials of all political, cultural and ethnic persuasions being far more interested with enriching themselves than the betterment of society. This statement comes across as rather naive.
> who want to overthrow the government in their government.
If you're talking about a ruling party losing an election to another party, we don't call that a government overthrow, we call that a transition of power. It is a feature of the system, and there is a lot of concern that it is done fairly and peacefully.
> The overwhelming majority of western countries have actively suppressed or fought back anyone who wants to dismantle or reform the country
This just reads like outright propaganda, I'm not going to bother addressing it on the merits.
> So are all democratic elections predetermined as well?
This is predicated on your previous propagandized statement having any real substantive factual bearing, which I don't believe it does, so my answer is no, they aren't. In fact, there are many, many examples of surprise results (see JFK, Obama, Trump, Brexit, Ukraine, etc.). So if there is some kind of global suppression operation at play, it doesn't have a very good track record of success.
Not sure what the USSR has to do with Chinese elections. Which is the topic.
The "lack of competition because other parties don't exist" is simply a naive view. Single party system DO have those same dynamics. The difference is purely aesthetic. If you think they don't then you're the one repeating propaganda.
It's relevant because it is an effective one party system when one party gains full control of the government. But because another party exists it's okay then?
Saying bad people existed in history doesn't mean everyone today is bad too. It's a bit reductionist. The point I was making is that one party systems eliminate the dynamics of "the other". Multiparty systems inevitably lead to tribalist behavior of "we're the good ones and the other groups are the bad ones". It's not productive and prevents progress for political theater.
No, I wasn't talking about one party winning over another. I'm talking about actual revolutions against the current government of any country.
I think you're continuing the misunderstanding. I am talking about actual revolutionary action. Regardless of political flavor revolutionary actors are suppressed by the state. The US didn't welcome the communist party and the UK didn't invite ISIS to form their own party.
Your last paragraph just continues this misunderstanding further. My point still stands that democracy can absolutely exist under a single party system and it's purely a cosmetic difference from a multiparty one. That doesn't mean it is ALWAYS the case or that one party systems are the best and flawless. Way too much anti-soviet era propaganda still shapes our views on politics and what is and isn't good. If we fail to honestly engage with our own and other political systems then we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of the past.
I don't think you intended to use this the way you did
reply