We already have plenty of laws and procedures that could rid us of that man, it’s just that no one with the power to use them is fucking doing anything.

The case has gripped South Korea, where abortions are not regulated properly. The procedure was decriminalised in 2019, there is no clear regulation on how far into pregnancy it can be carried out.

I cannot imagine a single reasonable person arguing that there is any legal right to kill an already born baby as a part of any abortion policy.

A huge fundamental principle of the pro-choice movement is about bodily autonomy and your right to decide that you will not use your body to incubate a fetus to maturity at this time, for any reason. The idea is that you have the right to remove a fetus from your body using reasonable methods, and if hasn’t matured into a viable baby that can survive outside of your uterus by that point, then it is an abortion.

There are a whole lot of arguments to be had within this realm. What does ‘reasonable’ look like in different cases? At what point is the fetus enough of a person for its rights to be considered, and how does that weigh against the pregnant person’s right to decline consent to using their organs to provide life support to another person? If a pregnancy is near the point of viability and there is no threat to the pregnant person, how long is it reasonable to expect them to wait to bring the fetus to the point of being a viable baby instead of aborting? Even among people who hold a consensus on the right to an abortion, there is some debate.

But I have never once encountered a single person who has argued that abortion law applies after the baby is already fucking born.

This is not a legal gray area.

I am a big believer in regulation, and some governments right now are in a position where they can be pressured to take anti-monopoly action against Amazon, which I want very much to see. Being in the U.S. as I am right now, though… There are some state governments I would like to see act (and shout-out to California for doing so here), but I am also brainstorming other nonviolent disruptive action which could be taken, because the federal government right now is actual fascists and Amazon is in league with them.

I was looking over instances sorted by uptime, saw one that had high uptime, a lot of users, and a literal promise that shit will just work in its name. I did a bit of scoping to see that it was easy to view communities across all instances from SJW and figured, fuck it, seems like as good a choice as any.

Oh my God they literally gave it the same acronym.

Frustrating, but I appreciate your answer; thank you.

Why is “(most favored nation status)” in parentheses?

I have often wondered whether targeted internet boycott days would shake up AWS, but I don’t know enough about their billing structure to run the numbers to see how much that would dig into AWS profits + how much of their income is flat subscription fees vs. billing on number of calls and haven’t had a chance to dig into it yet.

The other commenters here are right about Amazon’s initial methods, but I’m also going to highly recommend Cory Doctorow’s Enshittification for a detailed explanation of how this happens (including a breakdown on Amazon specifically) and what to do about it.

Congratulations!

Call me when you can run AI on burritos.

It’s not quite the movie/documentary you are looking for, but I have seen https://leavingmaga.org/ spread around.