comfy

Joan is making some good points, and I'd also like to go another step and say that superheros are alienated from the masses like you and me; we also need Jimmy Olsen to punch out nazis, with Superman cheering Jimmy on.

If Lil Kim can’t handle us making estimated guesses based on the limited facts we receive

Well, it's a bit of a problem when the media's widely-reported 'estimated guesses' are comically ridiculous and easily disproven, like that everyone must have the same haircut as Kimmy (and that having that haircut is also illegal), or claiming multiple officials have been executed with an anti-aircraft gun but it turns out they're alive.

North Korea is open to tourists who film the place. They have websites you can visit. Despite the relative isolation, there's plenty of footage and information freely available. So I can't even consider half of this junk 'limited facts', it's just absurd claims made about a designated acceptable target. Look, here's some tourists who just got whatever haircut they asked for in response to that mass media frenzy.

What are we expecting the state to say, "hello world, we denounce the western media claims that you can't buy hotdogs here" every time some ridiculous claim is made? I can't imagine any of our leaders wasting time doing that, and DPRK's definitely got bigger problems to worry about than what we think of them.

Best of luck to you, comrade.

STAT is their new nickname.

Are you suggesting Hitler manned the gas chambers himself? As far as direct murder goes, Hitler probably never killed a socialist, Roma, Jew or homosexual. The policies under his leadership resulted in the mass extermination of millions. That's why we charge him with genocides. Likewise, Joe Biden's policies enabled and continue to enable a preventable genocide.

Yep, tankies will probably disagree when someone claims the country that invaded the USSR was a 'friend' due to a diplomatic treaty of non-aggression. The USSR had already tried making pacts with the UK and France first, which were rejected, as referenced in the second paragraph in the link you gave:

The treaty was the culmination of negotiations around the 1938–1939 deal discussions, after tripartite discussions with the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and France had broken down

As pointed out in the Munich Conference section:

The Soviet leadership believed that the West wanted to encourage German aggression in the East and to stay neutral in a war initiated by Germany in the hope that Germany and the Soviet Union would wear each other out and put an end to both regimes.

Obviously the USSR didn't want to be friends with the most anti-communist regime in the continent who invented terms like 'Judeo-Bolshevik'. So tankies will consider it either ignorant or bad faith to bring up the Ribbentrop Pact to pretend it was anything more than realpolitik compromise resulting from the Western powers wanting the two countries to destroy each other. The alternative was being invaded sooner, which we know in hindsight was a real threat.

Why is a private entity significantly different from a government entity? If a coalition of private entities (say, facebook, twitter, youtube, ... ) controls most of the commons, they have the power to dictate everything beyond the fringes. We can already see this kind of collusion in mass media to the extent that it's labeled a propaganda model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

I just don't think the private/gov dichotomy is enough to decide when censorship and moderation is valid.

which does a lot of censoring, even though the creators are sort of, somehow, outwardly against censoring?

Another perspective on the Lemmy situation is that, for example, I can sincerely say I believe free speech has merits while creating a book club where political discussion isn't allowed. Some would call that censorship, but restricting a certain community doesn't mean I approve of unconditional societal censorship. "Censorship", like many abstract concepts in the liberalist worldview, doesn't make sense to think of as a universal value, but rather in contexts, like you pointed out with hate speech removal being in line with the beliefs of most people on the main Lemmy instances.

There are some concepts, for example, that I think are fine to discuss in an academic situation but should be censored in public spaces, especially when it comes to explicitly genocidal ideologies like Nazism, or bigoted hate speech.

Yeah, same when I came across it. I'd assumed it was just some recent hyperbole, but it's a long-used term with serious theoretical backing.

I imagine the only way out of this would be a non poverty level UBI?

UBI is one of the suggestions, one in the reformist category. However, looking at the little progress made by most countries in reforming capitalism over many decades, and in light of the control that the owning class have over politics and economics, many instead propose revolutionary solutions. Obviously, the richest of the rich would prefer to avoid either, and use the mass media to promote UBI as a bandage for capitalism, while using their influence over politicians to avoid even that happening. Unless citizens can gain real power, the promise of UBI is a long road to nowhere. If we ever see it, it will probably only be used as a last compromise to avoid revolution.

The alternative to reformism, the revolutionary solutions, demand a major reorganization of society to control or replace the capitalist wage system. Now, that's the simply summary, but the details stretch across about a century of theoretical and practical discussion and experience, from a broad range of worldviews and circumstances, from partyless direct-democracy anarchist communes to one-party states and everything in-between. I couldn't hope to do it justice here.

Hi, please consider editing the post title to briefly mention the camera model and the issue. This will help the people who might know the answer to find your post instead of skimming over it. :)

Something like "Canon EOS R50 is unexpectedly zooming back out"

Thanks for bringing up that program site (link, for convenience)

Like you said, it's hard to know the internal situation in the prison, so it's reasonable to want to avoid labeling this specific case as slavery or not without further evidence. The title is ultimately subjective, rather than the objective titles a news community typically encourages (by 'subjective', I'm referring to the fact that different worldviews have different interpretations of slavery, even up to the point where many through history consider regular work to be wage slavery based on a holistic analysis of labor in society)

These prisoners are supposedly doing this specific job voluntarily, with pay.

• Being voluntary doesn't contradict slavery. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery

• Being paid $0.50 an hour, as opposed to $0.00 an hour, is trivial. If the slave-owners of old societies gave their slaves a penny a day, they would still be slaves for all intents and purposes.

While I personally haven't looked into this specific case, there is a very consistent and ongoing history of forced prison labor in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century#Prison_labor

Inmates who refuse to work may be indefinitely remanded into solitary confinement, or have family visitation revoked. From 2010 to 2015 and again in 2016 and in 2018, some prisoners in the US refused to work, protesting for better pay, better conditions, and for the end of forced labor. Strike leaders were punished with indefinite solitary confinement.

That is forced work on an imprisoned person upon threat of punishment, even if they can theoretically decline it. This is a form of slavery, even if they get paid a dollar an hour.