World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Firstly, to say that Kim family is merely ceremonial mean you have to proof that someone else is running the show, that hatched all the plans, that have the final say. We don't have that information. What we have is he is the single most powerful person in North Korea, that rule and guide the country, that inherited the power from his father.
Of course, a king need a general and a treasurer, whether they are the one in control or not is not a known fact, and that will remained a mystery until someone close to them speak.
So yes, with the information the world have, we can safely say North Korea is run by a single family.
I don't doubt this, but you could have said the same about Queen Elizabeth before she got in a box
This requires more evidence. What's your evidence for this? What material reasons do you have to believe that the decisions come from Kim personally and not from the communist party?
I absolutely would not have described Queen Elizabeth as the most powerful person in the country at any time of her reign.
The Queen/King is quite literally above the law in the UK. So yes.
Influential? Yes. The current clown not so much.
What non-democratically-chosen capitalist owner would you have chosen then?
I'm going to invite you to go ahead and rephrase that in a way that is not completely nonsensical. Cuz I don't know what the fuck you're trying to say there or what it had to do with anything I said.
I can also say the same for all prime minister and president in country without monarch and with constitutional monarch. That is exactly what a leader of the country are. What is exactly your point here?
Let me do one better: what is your evidence that say otherwise?
A society whose results don't match those of a personal monarchic dictatorship. For example, Saudi Arabia, a widely known example of a monarchy with absolutist power, has 80% of the population composed of immigrants without rights who get stripped of their passports and get treated as slaves. There's no public healthcare, no infrastructure for poor people (trains, public schools, people-centered urbanism...), etc.
In the DPRK, there's widespread public transit infrastructure with trains and trams, public education for everyone, public healthcare, good workers' rights relative to their level of development, people-centered urban planning, collectivized agriculture... You wouldn't expect any of these things from an absolutist monarchy.
I would love to have source for your claim on north korea, because your claim on saudi arabia is all but nonsense, and is really easily dispelled with a little bit of internet search.
And across the history, some king are known to have build a lot of public infrastructure, while others don't. That isn't a sign of governance type, that is the sign of the competence of the leadership.
About Saudi Arabia:
Demographics in Saudi Arabia:
When 40%ish of the population is without basic human rights, idk what you're claiming false about my arguments
Regarding sources for North Korea, the YouTube channel "DPRK Explained" does a great job of showing the realities of North Korea. You should have a look if you're interested.
You:
Also you:
Wanna try again?
Then you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Saudi_Arabia
Then you also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Saudi_Arabia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Mashaaer_Al_Mugaddassah_Metro_line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Metro
There are several other line being planned.
The 80% figure I mistook for the one of Qatar originally, which has a similar system but 88% of their population are immigrants without rights.
Every service you pointed out leaves immigrants without access, 40% of Saudi population not having access to healthcare is exactly my point. Wikipedia explicitly says this healthcare is for citizens, and when 40% are non citizens, it's a de-facto apartheid state with half the population being immensely exploited
Why are you running defense for authoritarian monarchies in the Middle East?
No you don't, you're just ignorant. Next you gonna tell me south korea is a dictator state and then whoops, you confused it with north korea.
You first say poor people, now you change it to immigrant. How many time do you wanna move the goal post?
Wikipedia also stated:
"Sponsors/employers are responsible for paying for an extensive package of services for private sector expatriates."
Is this supposed to be an attack on me or defence of your own ignorant? I see you spitting bs that can be easily debunked via a simple search, so i debunked it via a simple search. And why are you defending dictator state of north korea?
I knew the 80% figure off the top of my head, just mistook Qatar for SA, how else do you explain the 80% figure specifically.
I specified poor in the case of the DPRK as they have practically no immigration, but left clear the apartheid regime against immigrants in the case of the Arabian Peninsula Monarchies.
If the de-facto result is that immigrants are left without a fucking passport, the regulation matters 0. You measure a system by its results, not by its laws.
There's no need to be an impolite twat, and skimming over a wikipedia article doesnt give you the slightest authority to discuss a subject.
I'm running defense for the DPRK because there is an insane amount of bullshit surrounding the country as proven by people in the comments taking Yeonmi Parks at face value, and I believe there is virtue in being educated about stuff, especially politically. You refuse to do that and instead you get mad and start insulting, so I'll stop wasting my time with you.
I thought it was 80% migrants? Also, except for the bit about permission to leave country (crazy, imo) that sounds like a normal work permit in many conventionally democratic countries, where employer also uses it's power over migrant workers. It might be worse in practice, of course, that depends on courts
Sorry, mistook it originally for the Qatar figure, which has a similar system and 88% migrant population.
When immigrant workers aren't given access to basic rights like healthcare, it's an apartheid state. You could read about it instead of speculating about the extreme levels of exploitation of those poor people.
My point was more along the lines of specific democracies doing almost as bad, and being a counterexample for extracting political system information from unrelated data