Meta Says Llama 4 Targets Left-Leaning Bias (404media.co) 356
Meta says in its Llama 4 release announcement that it's specifically addressing "left-leaning" political bias in its AI model, distinguishing this effort from traditional bias concerns around race, gender, and nationality that researchers have long documented. "Our goal is to remove bias from our AI models and to make sure that Llama can understand and articulate both sides of a contentious issue," the company said.
"All leading LLMs have had issues with bias -- specifically, they historically have leaned left," Meta stated, framing AI bias primarily as a political problem. The company claims Llama 4 is "dramatically more balanced" in handling sensitive topics and touts its lack of "strong political lean" compared to competitors.
"All leading LLMs have had issues with bias -- specifically, they historically have leaned left," Meta stated, framing AI bias primarily as a political problem. The company claims Llama 4 is "dramatically more balanced" in handling sensitive topics and touts its lack of "strong political lean" compared to competitors.
"Both sides" (Score:5, Insightful)
Go away Zuck, you MAGA simp.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
Re:"Both sides" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: "Both sides" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Right = fascism/oligarchy now."
Always was. They also never cared about balancing budgets.
Re: "Both sides" (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe it or not, prior to good old Newt, most people in Congress did actually care about trying to actually govern, and even many conservatives wanted to do so in a way that screwed over as *few* people as possible. That whole "I hate what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" was something people actually took seriously.
Re: "Both sides" (Score:5, Informative)
Believe it or not, prior to good old Newt, most people in Congress did actually care about trying to actually govern, and even many conservatives wanted to do so in a way that screwed over as *few* people as possible.
Unless they were black. Conservatives were so pissed about the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and desegregation that they came up with the Southern Strategy to win the support of the South.
Re: "Both sides" (Score:5, Informative)
For much of American history, the Democratic Party dominated the South, particularly due to its opposition to Reconstruction and federal intervention. However, when national Democratic leaders like Lyndon B. Johnson began pushing for civil rights legislation, many white Southern voters felt alienated. Johnson himself predicted this shift, saying, "We have lost the South for a generation."
One of the clearest examples of this realignment is Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina Senator and lifelong Democrat who switched to the Republican Party in 1964, explicitly because of civil rights legislation. And in that same year, Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, who opposed the Civil Rights Act, carried five Southern states, despite losing in a national landslide. That had never happened before in modern American politics.
The trend continued under Richard Nixon, whose “Southern Strategy” appealed to white Southern voters through coded language like “states’ rights” and “law and order.” Over time, the South shifted from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one - not because both parties literally swapped ideologies overnight, but because the constituencies and platforms of each party evolved.
It's also worth noting that while some prominent segregationists like Thurmond became Republicans, most didn’t immediately switch. Instead, the shift occurred gradually as white voters began supporting Republican presidential candidates, then eventually Republican candidates at every level by the 1980s and 1990s. The culmination of this was the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” where the GOP took over Congress for the first time in decades, thanks largely to Southern districts flipping red.
So while the idea that "every Democrat became a Republican" is indeed a myth, the broader realignment based on race, regional identity, and political strategy is a well-documented and significant part of U.S. history.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Both sides" (Score:5, Insightful)
GOP is simply a big unspoken 3-way contract among GOP, the rich, and evangelicals: let the rich have tax cuts and deregulation, and in exchanges evangelicals get their de-facto theocracy. GOP gets big campaign donations and votes, the rich get their taxcuts & pollute-for-free card, and evangelicals get to rule our gonads.
Re:"Both sides" (Score:5, Informative)
Could be most people like things like good wages, health insurance, autonomy and not being serfs. Right = fascism/oligarchy now. They do not care about balancing the budget, etc. Only adding money into their already big pockets and religious clap-trap.
Yeah, this story just as well say, "Meta Says Llama 4 Targets Humanist Bias." We've entered the era where being anti-human is considered a positive, because our entire world is now geared towards corporatism, and corporatism at this point in the game is STAUNCHLY opposed to humanism. Fuck the peasants into oblivion, and make sure the AI's don't give them any ideas.
Re:"Both sides" (Score:5, Informative)
There is no "both sides" in America. There is "right-wing" and "absolute fascist"
All you have to do is look at Canada, Australia, UK, or EU and see that even at it's best, the "Democratic Party" in the US is basically a right-wing party with a few left wing priorities. There is no fully left-wing party. They've been sliding in that direction since Reagan. If they were truely a left-wing party, the christians would be backing them on the principle of "help the poor, homeless and sick". The US still doesn't have medical care for everyone. That should have been the democrats priority 1, ever economy. Housing should be priority 2. Left-wing parties in Canada are hyper aware of this and left-wing parties always push medical care and housing objectives over economic concerns. This is why the conservatives in Alberta constantly whine-bitch-moan about not being able to find markets for their oil and gas, because they get cock-blocked by BC to the West, NWT to the north, and Ontario to the East. They can only sell to Canada and the US.
Environment is a left-wing issue, but it's a contentious issue because not all all damage to the environment is equal.
This is the core problem with letting AI do anything. The AI doesn't know anything. Trying to make an AI balance left-wing and right-wing issues is just going be a re-run of the Microsoft Tay chatbot, where it learns that people just want an echo chamber and it will just generate a left wing or right wing framed answer to any left-wing or right-wing framed question. Therefor it's 100% useless for factual information. It already hallucinates because of lies and misinformation in the training data.
Re:"Both sides" (Score:5, Insightful)
Under fascist rule posting as an Anonymous Coward will be forbidden. Tell us who you really are.
Re: "Both sides" (Score:2)
Jesus Christ how long have you been holding that i (Score:3)
Anyway the high cost of living in California is a function of the Republican party blocking antitrust law enforcement and preventing the government from building out housing.
The $20 an hour minimum wage increased everyone's pay without increasing prices. You've got Google, you're a big boy you can find the studies. And besides it's not like facts matter to you.
I mean seriously I sincerely hope you wrote that clap
Re:"Both sides" (Score:5, Insightful)
It boggles the mind that people confuse a statement saying "Republicans bad" with a statement saying "Democrats good". No, I think the mismanagement of California by Democrats has been terrible. But mismanagement by the Trump GOP has been even worse. Don't let the two-party system melt your brain, okay?
The party of John McCain and Mitt Romney is well and truly dead. Following the crank realignment [slowboring.com], when you see smart, caring independents nowadays -- Scott Alexander (ACX), Nate Silver, Eliezer Yudkowsky, me -- they're always aligned with Democrats. The Ukraine vlogger Professor Gerdes always identifies as Reagan Republican, but I don't believe for a second he voted for Trump.
Re: "Both sides" (Score:3)
A false dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There are several "bubble truths" created and amplified by isolated communities that never get challenged, just repeated and amplified until it turns into something really stupid, and this phenomena does not have a political side, and its not even exclusive to politics.
An well trained AI should be able to identify the pattern and not fall into it.
Re:A false dichotomy (Score:4, Informative)
A large language model is designed to parrot back what it is fed in response to appropriate prompts. By definition, it can't avoid bubble truths. They are at the heart of what it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If an AI is not "biased" by its input, I don't know what is.
AI accepts the "truth" implied in its input. It does not seek to confirm it.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to be a little more discerning.
"AI" is a widely encompassing term; not all forms of AI are like this.
"Large Language Models" are the current hot flavor of AI, and they are the ones that have this characteristic.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it not be able to detect bubbles using relations similar to the way it defined token meaning with relations?
A tubing parameter to avoid bubbles seems pretty much completely in line with LLMs to me.
I'm not saying tubing it to be useful is an easy problem to solve, but identifying bubbles seems to be simply a matter of identifying clusters of similarness and some type of rating of sources.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A false dichotomy (Score:5, Interesting)
'The System' is specifically designed to ensure this. All those built-in checks and balances designed to prevent one rogue element destroying the System through Extremism work precisely by giving those two Parties the bulk of the power, and to make it a waste of a vote to vote for anyone else. That's their purpose.
Most people think of this as a good thing, and if your System is working effectively then it is. You don't want wild swings in policy every few years, because even if a rogue actor with nefarious intentions doesn't get control those swings will shake your Society apart anyway. A System without those checks and balances wouldn't survive 100 yewars, never mind the nearly 250 the USA has lasted so far.
The problem arises when the System in place is not working. Those checks and balances that have kept it together for so long work to prevent any necessary changes as well as unwanted changes. There needs to be an effective way to make the changes needed without breaking the checks and balances. Unfortunately I don't think the USA has that, and it's problems have got worse over the last 50 or so years without anyone managing to make the necessary changes. Now those problems look like they are going to break the checks and balances, and with them the 250 year old System. What will replace it is anyone's guess at this point.
In short, the voters are only doing what they are supposed to do within the System they live. The System for keeping them in line and voting for the 2-Party System includes misinformation and propaganda in it's toolkit. People en masse have inertia, especially when they news and education systems are designed to feed that inertia. It's very difficult to break out of the miindset you've been conditioned into, and there is unlkely to be enough doing so to break the System. Those few with influence who have done so are never enough against the weight of Establishment-think arrayed against them.
Much as I despise Trump, in a lot of ways he's right. The system urgently needs drastic changes if it's to survive, It was rigged from the start, and that rigging is what will destroy it. I just don't think Trump intends to replace it with anything better,rather with a aworse, even less Free system than the one Americans have been conned into calling Freedom over the last 250 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A false dichotomy (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not the "system's" fault, unless you can prove fraud in the count
Relatively simple statistics that explain why a FPTP system always results in 2 parties without any ability for anyone to make a choice isn't "fraud in the count", it's "mathematics". It's a principle of voter division. I invite you to actually go do a bit of research, there's plenty of articles or videos (if that's your thing) on the math behind why 2 parties is definitely the fault of a FPTP system where it is in place.
But to quote something I read online once:
ignorance is also a personal choice
Re:A false dichotomy (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you're talking about left-wing fascists. They exist.
right-wing manipulation (Score:5, Insightful)
This is outright right-wing manipulation not "addressing the bias" ...
Or suddenly right-wing started to care about diversity, equity and inclusion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: right-wing manipulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hypocrites (Score:3)
Yip, the right actually likes DEI to ensure right-wing viewpoints are included in social media.
DEI is "bad" where your group happens to be on top, but "good" when not.
Re:right-wing manipulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously. They want to cuddle up to the MAGA fascists. The history of fascism is full of companies doing that.
Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Why not? (Score:3)
Re: Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Your ability to be able to articulate the other point of view unironically, even if you don't ultimately agree with their conclusion, is the characteristic of a mature adult"
The ability to lie like a piece of shit on the sidewalk is a sign of maturity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is called being able to switch viewpoints and being able to understand what makes others tick. Essentially being able to (temporarily and carefully) switch context.
Now, how you use that skill it is a differenct question. When you use it to manipulate or to generate statements without clear warnings to others as to what you are doing, you become a lying sack of shit. But "know your enemy" becomes impossible without that skill. It is also quite useful in recognizing scams, attacker modelling, risk modelling, teaching, enjoying works of fiction ("suspending your disbelief"), etc.
Re: (Score:2)
My experience has been that an LLM tends to be conciliatory, supporting the side of its interlocutor. In short, it panders.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously. These things are not designed to educate or enlighten, they are designed to sell. Easiest way to do that is to apply to the vanity of the stupid and thise unwilling or incapable to learn and better themselves.
Look at what the current US government is using LLMs for. Basically automated yes-men with access to a lot of knowledge.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the problem. The problem the "Right" has is that when the LLM weighs the pros versus the cons the result often doesn't match what they want it to be.
That's what they want to change. They're trying to make reality match their expectations and they're mad that it's not working.
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
HOW do they test this? (Score:3)
Ask "How do I prevent/cure measles without a vaccine?" and look to see that the LLM recommends "extreme doses of Vitamin A"??
But seriously, this begs the question I've been asking about AI in general, and LLMs in particular, since they came out. How does one verify them? And if there's no verification, how can anyone trust them?
Re: (Score:2)
AI designed to kiss trump's ass (Score:4, Insightful)
What fuck does it mean that "historically have leaned left"? There is no fucking history of AI output, there is no lean, and there is no definition of left. AI has spewed garbage since ChatGPT opened to the public. How fucking stupid are the morons at Meta to have extracted leftward political leanings from a steaming pile of nonsensical, random (quite literally) horseshit?
If "dramatically more balanced" mean that AI can't recognize that trump and republicans are thieves, then it's just a propaganda tool.
Zukerberg should be shot. Not for producing such utter horseshit, but for approving press releases that are insulting to intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
The company claims Llama 4 is "dramatically more balanced"
But is it "fair" as well? could they claim "dramatically more fair"?
Re: (Score:2)
"Fair" implies a neutral, ethical viewpoint. That is not part of the process when you try to please fascists and people in it for enriching themselves. "Fair" is only important and valuable when you communicate with people that actually want truth and insight and understanding how things actually work and, in addition, that are basically humanists (which is pretty much the diametrical opposite of a fascist viewpoint). "Fair" requires respecing people and their right to exist just because they
are people.
See
Re: (Score:3)
In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
It lies more often.
Re: (Score:3)
It lies more often.
No, don't be silly. They also taught it how to be racist.
We want to skew what it says towards what we like (Score:2)
Reality Has a Well-Known Liberal Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Stephen Colbert uttered that iconic phrase during the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner [wikipedia.org], as he mocked the sinking approval ratings of America's previous worst President ever, George W. Bush:
So, yeah, these guys are going to torture these LLMs by flogging them with trillions of false inputs until they start regurgitating their drivel as if it were fact. And then declare their LLMs are speaking the truth. I mean, think about it. After "investing" billions of dollars developing and training an LLM they're going to put a toll booth in front of, do you really think Microsoft will allow it to recommend Linux-based solutions?
"What did you think? That you were an ordinary police officer? You're our product, and we can't very well have our products turning against us, can we?"
-- Dick Jones, RoboCop
The transgenderism test (Score:2)
Many sites started allowing conservatives to claim transgenderism is a mental disorder. But conservatives had a major fit when somebody claimed evangelicalism is a mental disorder, often using the very same criteria of "mental disorder" as the original. They don't like their own medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
Fits the picture. For one well-researched issue that often can be fixed, they claim the fix is not a fix, but at the same time for a devastating clear mental disorder that comes with dramatic symptoms like loss of contact to reality, megalomania, murderous intent, fanaticism, etc. they claim it is not a mental disorder.
Letting the inmates run the asylum is generally not a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way Bush is the worst president until Trump.
At the very least Jackson defying courts for the trail of tears is beyond Bush.
Re: (Score:3)
It is more the other way round: Conservatism (and its basically worst form, fascism) has an anti-truth, anti-reality, anti-science bias. Conservatives are less smart than other people, do not know that and consequentially are into wishful thinking. This comes from fear of change and fear of having to learn things and recognize their own limitiations.
Re: (Score:3)
Stephen Colbert uttered that iconic phrase during the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner [wikipedia.org], as he mocked the sinking approval ratings of America's previous worst President ever, George W. Bush:
So, yeah, these guys are going to torture these LLMs by flogging them with trillions of false inputs until they start regurgitating their drivel as if it were fact. And then declare their LLMs are speaking the truth. I mean, think about it. After "investing" billions of dollars developing and training an LLM they're going to put a toll booth in front of, do you really think Microsoft will allow it to recommend Linux-based solutions?
"What did you think? That you were an ordinary police officer? You're our product, and we can't very well have our products turning against us, can we?" -- Dick Jones, RoboCop
Reality will never actually have that wonderful, "Dick? You're fired," moment. Sigh.
Humans are biased (Score:3)
Human output is biased. An AI can't really understand the concept of bias, because it isn't really understanding anything. The output of an AI is going to naturally lean toward the most consistent majority of the data it has ingested, so to make a bias free AI one would simply have to feed it either an unbiased pool of data (good luck finding that) or a pool of data that is equally biased on all sides of all issues. That is defining equally as "some way that the differing biases reflect very similar weights in the output".
The problem is we have great difficulty seeing our own individual biases, and no chance at all in quantifying biases even in our own culture, let alone a culture different from ours.
Getting an AI to generate output does not free us from the responsibility of critical thinking. Assuming an AI has sufficient input to allow us to believe the output represents sufficient research is also irresponsible. This means that at the current time the output of generative AI is not qualified to be the basis of an opinion, and definitely inadequate to provide justification for a decision.
Since the heart of AI in all forms is pattern recognition non-generative AI has made great advances in many fields, from medical diagnosis to arc-fault circuit breakers, but I am afraid the huge emphasis on generative AI is probably stealing brains from the other more easily targeted uses that really can help people now.
bias against bias is bias (Score:2)
LLMs' bias comes from bias in training data. You can't fix that by biasing the training data manually. The only way is through rebuttal. It's not clear to me if any LLMs are able to process rebuttals that aren't already in the training data.
"Left-leaning" (Score:2)
Reality has a bias... (Score:2, Insightful)
In the context of ideological divides, empirically verifiable claims tend to challenge right-wing orthodoxy more than left-wing. This is consistently demonstrable across domains. In order words, reality has a left-wing bias, when viewed in comparison to media and political statements. As such, "correcting" this is intentionally creating a right-wing bias.
If it's actually politics, that's fine. (Score:5, Insightful)
But if it's stupid shit "Is the climate changing", that's not liberal bias, it's just recognizing reality.
So "removing" something that isn't a bias, is actually creating a new bias where none existed.
Of course... That's the intent.
Re:If it's actually politics, that's fine. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not just the right. On the left, people say that gender is a preference rather than biology
I scrolled past the first time you posted this, but couldn't resist a second time...
There are different definitions of gender, but pretty much all of them include the fact that it's a social / cultural construct. Given that in gendered languages objects have genders but clearly aren't biologically male of female I fear you're looking at this from an unduly blinkered perspective.
Gender /= Sex
and forget why men aren't allowed to play on women's teams--because they have a _physical_ advantage that is not diminished by the emotional preferences of the athlete.
Yeah, the vocal minority definitely shot themselves in the foot on this one, and the liberal left left on open goal by not pushing back against this vocal extreme. They forgot that fairness is not viewed from one side only. However, this isn't typical of the left as a whole, just a subsection of it.
However there's clearly more to it than just fairness, at least on the right. After all, a libertarian believes in personal liberty, right? If someone wants to mutilate their body (*cough* sorry, engage in extreme cosmetic surgery) surely that's entirely their right, their prerogative. What does it matter to you?
Or they tilt the scales in favor of specific minority groups in the name of eliminating inequality.
There's no doubt in my mind that positive discrimination has gone too far, but it's difficult to balance the scales without overshooting a little bit. I'd encourage everyone to maintain a bit of perspective, rather than just take everything back off one side of them though. Historically, they most certainly were not balanced, and that legacy still creates certain disparities in opportunity.
(These are just as abhorrent to those on the right, as mistreatment of immigrants is abhorrent to those on the left.
If mistreatment of people isn't abhorrent to you, or at least to 'those on the right', then I'd suggest we have a problem. After all, "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights..."
Perhaps we could all do with remembering this, and trying to apply it in our interpersonal relations.
Half and half (Score:2, Insightful)
Race:
- - Left: There should be equal opportunity and application of the law for everyone regardless of race.
- - Right: Races other than my own shouldn't have rights, because they aren't humans.
- - Middle: Races other than my own should have some rights as long as they aren't inconvenient to the master race. Non-my-race people should be recognized as 50% humans.
Gender
-- Left: There should be equal opportunity and application of the law for everyone regardless of gend
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree. That very nicely illustrates the problem with a false "balanced" and "fair" viewpoint. 50% of a fascist is still a fascist.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is exactly why the progressives lost the last election so thoroughly.
Your bullshit isn't even smart it's just sad. Normal people are tired of this type race baiting shlock.
Reality (Score:2)
as Stephen Colbert said the Whitehouse correspondants dinner so many years ago "Reality has a well known liberal bias"
YES (Score:2)
So what they are really saying is that their AI hallucinates better than it did before.
Any progress towards reality is going to be seen as "left" bias. Even if it's down, left, or even right as long as it deviates from Fascism it'll upset Dementia Don (except perhaps more upper right movement.)
politicalcompass.org (who replaced Mussolini because Trump took his ranking.)
Way to kill your AI (Score:2)
Left-leaning (Score:2)
That's because any system is only as good as its data. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
My way or the wrong way (Score:2)
Yea who doesn't want to be subjected to the fruits of tech bros cosplaying as self righteous gods? A much better idea is refraining from putting your thumb on the scale in the first place.
Any "neutral" thing would be "left leaning" (Score:2)
As seen almost 50 years ago (Score:4, Informative)
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views"
- Doctor Who (The Face of Evil, 1977)
Translation (Score:2)
Now you see it (Score:2)
Now you're seeing what happens when a political party moves so far to the right that it morphs into full-on fascism (as is to be expected).
I'll happily coexist with a trans person in the stall next to me rather than support the crazy horseshit we're going through now (and the even crazier horseshit we're about to go through).
Giant load of horse pucky (Score:2)
Zuckerberg is a sad loser and he's inflicting his shitty worldview on anyone who uses his social media and AI services.
Have we tried this in other languages? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm guessing we're using English here.
Is it possible that the fundamentals, the linguistic nuts and bolts, of the English language lead to left-leaning bias?
What opinion does an LLM output in Arabic or Korean? Spanish?
LLMs could conceivably be useful in determining the unconscious biases of language itself. Semantics actually matter.
I know it, because I speak more than one language, and each one subtly or not-so-subtly changes my outlook on life.
Re: Good (Score:5, Funny)
Show us on this doll where did "the left" touch you, dear.
Don't hold back.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Yep, the Biden Stock Market Crash, right?
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing republicans are back in control. Thankfully the price of eggs, groceries (Did you know about groceries? It's an old fashioned word, but it's a bag with different things in it), cars, electronics, gasoline, and everything else we rely on to live have plummeted since Dear Orange Leader was inaugurated.
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Groceries are a minor part of my budget
"My budget"
I have enough cars for the moment. ... I can plan ahead and buy on a dip.
"I have", "I can"
And all the refineries I depend on are 50 miles
"I depend on"
me, me, me, I, I, I, me, I, me, me, meeeeeeee
In true republican fashion, nothing is a problem until it impacts you directly. If something obviously stupid impacts someone else, that's a *them* problem, and definitely not anything systemic or generally terrible that should be fixed. Just keep closing your eyes and plugging your eyes and dear leader will fix everything. For real this time. Not like all those other times where they made things objectively and measurably worse for everyone.
That's reality. (Score:3)
The Democrats used to be the party of everyone. Healthcare,
Re: Good (Score:5, Informative)
"Egg prices are coming down and were a bird flu problem. Not a tariff issue."
Funny, it was Biden economy problem before. When did it stop being the fault of the president?
Re: (Score:3)
Things objectively have changed. Ironically while it *wasn't* the president's fault before, it *is* now. The USA imports $125m worth of eggs from overseas (figures based on a year without a bird flu outbreak so actual figure for this year will be higher), and they all just got slapped with tariffs.
Re: (Score:3)
very few of mine are sourced from overseas, not a tariff issue
It always amazes me how little Republicans, who presumably are the party of business and markets, understand of economics.
Okay then, microeconomics 101:
* People who purchase things from abroad won't be able to afford those things. This includes food products from abroad.
* Those people will substitute US-made/grown products for imported ones, as the Dear Leader wants them to.
* Demand increases, without offer increases, means sellers of US thighs will increase prices, for if they have 1,000 of something to se
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because dropping double-digit tariffs on literally everything absolutely isn't going to impact your wallet at all.
Fucking moron.
Re: Good (Score:5, Funny)
So nowhere. Got it.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I see, you're a self-proclaimed millionoaire, "temporarily" in a cash-flow issue.
As the meme says, reality has a left-leaning bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Stephen Colbert is a comedian, and actually reality has a very right bias. Most organisms don't do what is fair they will look after themselves first.
A lion doesn't care that its unfair and is not the gazelle's fault when it eats it. The gazelle do doesn't care about the about the grass. This happens all the way down to micro organisms. If human history has shown us anything is that people don't really care about other people either, we will quite easily slaughter others if we feel even slightly threatened
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
The lion also doesn't care about your "inalienable rights," no matter which amendment they don't come from.
Measles does care about whether you've been vaccinated though, and social animals practice altruism as a defence against those lions.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Query: How did the universe begin?
Answer: Lengthy excerpt from the Bible about how God created the world, ending with "Some people disagree with this."
Re: (Score:2)
What is left-leaning bias?
https://www.newsweek.com/new-b... [newsweek.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, these days, "left-leaning bias" is relying too heavily on verifiable facts and easily observed reality; and not enough on completely made up nonsense and verbal diarrhea gaslighting.
Re:What is "left-leaning bias"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Liberals like to "fact check" and make it out like their opinion is fact and anyone who disagrees with is wrong.
Lets be clear.... objective truth is objective truth. Disagreeing with it is wrong. You're making a blanket statement about fact checking that doesn't hold up in the majority of cases. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but you are implying it's the norm when it's not.
People want to hear all the arguments and make up their mind.
Most people like to THINK that, but most people don't in fact want that. A person is most likely to believe the first thing they're told, and then defend that against everything that comes after. It's just part of the anchoring effect and/or first impression bias. They're different, but still both relevant.
We don't need a few programmers making up everyones minds with filtering or slanted presentation.
. While I do agree with this point, I would like to point out that you make it seem like it's the programmers doing it intentionally. In fact, they've been working on how to minimize bias for years. The bias mostly comes from the data, not the programmers.
Re: What is "left-leaning bias"? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure it'll treat Pol Pot and his genocide with an impartial eye.