Yeah after making an algorithm for peertube I'm gonna say this is too complicated to implement. That graphic might be the the plan and it's something more simplistic.
Making a simple cosign vector for peertube was a pain
Saying you tried something simpler and it was hard is not proof that this implementation is a fraud. If anything, it just makes you look less credible yourself. If you have specific aspects you can point to that are impractical, and the technical reasons they wouldn't work, feel free, but it's not a dodge to say that the diagram makes sense and this team had done a lot of impressive work already.
Are you really asking me to take a video of me using the app for an extended period of time and analyzing the results to determine if it lines up with the various details of the algorithm outlined above? Cause I'm not really sure how else I would prove that its actually implemented as described.
I have not flipped the question, I am just genuinely curious of the details you find hard to believe here. It all seems quite straight forward and understandable to me. Complex, sure, but again, they have done a lot of impressive work already, so it's not outside the realm of possibility that it is implemented as described. Or at the very least, that's what they're working towards. I would love to hear you, a self proclaimed expert on the subject, explain the details that don't work, other than "I tried and its hard".
Ok, your points are all 100% right and I'm too much of a dumb fuck pleb on the subject to argue. Your dick is made of gold, and I will suck it on cue for you, whenever you want.
Now go ahead and explain how I, or you, or anyone else, could prove that this is not implemented as described.
Well the code is published on github for you to review. I'm sure you can find the functions and variables the digest them in your head to match them to the blocks in the picture
Lol, no. You are the supposed algorithm expert, so tell me how what I saw in the code is wrong. It looks right to me, so unless you explain what its missing, then you will the one taking the L and moving on. ✌️
I'm not too happy to spend time pointing out flaws in AI slop. That kind of bullshit asymmetry feels a bit too much like work. But, since you're polite about it, and seem to ask in good faith...
First of all this is presented as a technical infographic on an "algorithm" for how a recommendation engine will work. As someone whose job it is to design similar things, it explains pretty much nothing of substance. It does, however, include many concepts that would be part of something like this, with fuzzy boxes and arrow that make very little sense. With some minor trivial parts you can assume from the problem description itself. It's all just weird and confusing. And, "confusing" not in the "skill issue" sense.
So let's see what this suggested algorithm is.
It starts out with "user requests the feed", and depending on whether or not you have "preference" data (prior interests or choices, etc), you give either a selection based on something generic, or something that you can base recommendations on. Well... sure. So far, silly, and trivial.
"Scoring and
... show more
I'm not too happy to spend time pointing out flaws in AI slop. That kind of bullshit asymmetry feels a bit too much like work. But, since you're polite about it, and seem to ask in good faith...
First of all this is presented as a technical infographic on an "algorithm" for how a recommendation engine will work. As someone whose job it is to design similar things, it explains pretty much nothing of substance. It does, however, include many concepts that would be part of something like this, with fuzzy boxes and arrow that make very little sense. With some minor trivial parts you can assume from the problem description itself. It's all just weird and confusing. And, "confusing" not in the "skill issue" sense.
So let's see what this suggested algorithm is.
It starts out with "user requests the feed", and depending on whether or not you have "preference" data (prior interests or choices, etc), you give either a selection based on something generic, or something that you can base recommendations on. Well... sure. So far, silly, and trivial.
"Scoring and ranking engine". And below this, a pie diagram with four categories. Why are there lines between only the two top categories, and the engine box? Seems weird, but, OK. I suppose all four are equally connected, which would be clearer without the lines. Also, what are the ratios here? Weights for importance, of some sort? "Time-Decayed"? I hope that's not the term that stuck for measuring retention/attention time.
On the three horizontal "Source Streams" arrows coming in from the left, its all just weird. The source streams are going to be... generated content, no? But let's give it the befit of the doubt and assume it's suggesting that, given generated content, some of it might can be considered relevant for "personal preference" and has a "filter: hidden creators", but, none of that makes any sense. The scoring and ranking engine is already suggested to do this part.... The next one is "Popular (high scores) filter: bloom filter (already seen)". Which mixes concepts. A bloom filter is the perfect thing to confuse an LLM, because it has nothing to do with filters in the exact same context "filters" was used for the above source stream. Something intelligent wouldn't make this mistake. But, it does statistically parrot it's way to suggest that a bloom filter might have something to do with a cost effective predicate function that could make sense for a "has seen before". However, why is this here?
I'll just leave it at that. This infographic would make a lot of sense if it was created by some high schoolers who were tasked to do something like this. Came up with some relevant sounding concepts. Didn't fully understand any of them. Which is also exactly the kind of stuff LLMs do
I don't think loops hired a bunch of kids, so LLM it is.
And the like "Our new For You algorithm is pretty complex, so we created this infographic to make it easier to understand!", doesn't help the case against LLM either. There a many complex parts of a recommendation engine, but none of the things in this infographic explain or illuminate those complex parts...
But, I might be wrong, and this is their earnest attempt at explaining how their algorithm works. In which case, they are just bad at either explaining it, or at designing it, most likely both. Then again, if I'm right, and this is generated by an LLM still gives the same impression, but leaves some room for "someone who isn't technical, asked an LLM, and phoned this in because it looked cool, and people who don't know any better will think so too!"
Just because you overanalyzed something to the point of confusing yourself does not mean that it is AI slop, or equally confusing for others.
To address the specific points you raised as "evidence" of AI:
The two top categories have lines going to them because those are the things that a user controls with their activity on the platform. Prior to that, the "for you" recommendation engine is not active, since it has nothing to base it's recommendations on. Seems pretty clear to me.
Time decayed, in the context of that category means when you last interacted with a post. If you haven't interacted with a post for a while, it will no longer show up in your for you feed. Again, really quite straight forward.
What about filtering hidden creators makes no sense? You hide a creator, they don't show up in your feed. That's one aspect of personalization, from the start, the rest of it is the two categories that, once they make it past the "hidden creator" filter, determine how likely it is to show up.
Bloom filter is literally explained right there,
... show more
Just because you overanalyzed something to the point of confusing yourself does not mean that it is AI slop, or equally confusing for others.
To address the specific points you raised as "evidence" of AI:
The two top categories have lines going to them because those are the things that a user controls with their activity on the platform. Prior to that, the "for you" recommendation engine is not active, since it has nothing to base it's recommendations on. Seems pretty clear to me.
Time decayed, in the context of that category means when you last interacted with a post. If you haven't interacted with a post for a while, it will no longer show up in your for you feed. Again, really quite straight forward.
What about filtering hidden creators makes no sense? You hide a creator, they don't show up in your feed. That's one aspect of personalization, from the start, the rest of it is the two categories that, once they make it past the "hidden creator" filter, determine how likely it is to show up.
Bloom filter is literally explained right there, it's if you have seen a post yet or not. Lemmy clearly does not have this sort of filter, because you keep seeing the same shit over and over until it drops off from whatever category of the feed you're viewing. Really not sure what is hard to understand there.
You're using a lot of fancy words in your analysis here, but the actual analysis is nonsensical. Almost makes me wonder if you yourself are actually a bot.
I think you might have missed my point. I wasn't listing stuff I had trouble understanding. I was listing stuff that didn't make much sense. The distinction is relevant. The end result, even if you manage to find some excuse that extends the already generous benefit of doubt, it still doesn't result in anything useful or informative.
I'm also not using fancy words (or..?). The only fancy thing that stands out is the the "Bloom filter", which isn't a fancy word. It's just a thing, in particular a data structure. I referenced it because its an indication of an LLM, in behaving like the stochastic parrot that it is. LLMs don't know anything, and no transformer based approach will ever know anything. The "filter" part of "bloom filter" will have associations to other "filters", even tho it actually isn't a "filter" in any normal use of that word. That's why you see "creator filter" in the same context as "bloom filter", even though "bloom filter" is something no human expert would put there.
The most amusing and annoying thing about AI slop, is that it's
... show more
I think you might have missed my point. I wasn't listing stuff I had trouble understanding. I was listing stuff that didn't make much sense. The distinction is relevant. The end result, even if you manage to find some excuse that extends the already generous benefit of doubt, it still doesn't result in anything useful or informative.
I'm also not using fancy words (or..?). The only fancy thing that stands out is the the "Bloom filter", which isn't a fancy word. It's just a thing, in particular a data structure. I referenced it because its an indication of an LLM, in behaving like the stochastic parrot that it is. LLMs don't know anything, and no transformer based approach will ever know anything. The "filter" part of "bloom filter" will have associations to other "filters", even tho it actually isn't a "filter" in any normal use of that word. That's why you see "creator filter" in the same context as "bloom filter", even though "bloom filter" is something no human expert would put there.
The most amusing and annoying thing about AI slop, is that it's loved by people who don't understand the subject. They confuse an observation of slop (by people who... know the subject), with "ah, you just don't get it", by people who don't.
I design and implement systems and "algorithms" like this, as part of my job. Communicating them efficiently is also part of that job. If anyone came to me with this diagram, pre 2022, I'd be genuinely concerned if they were OK, or had some kind of stroke. After 2022, my LLM-slop radar is pretty spot on.
But hey, you do you. I needed to take a shit earlier and made the mistake of answering. Now I'm being an idiot who should know better. Look up Brandolini's law, if you need an explanation for what I mean.
I just explained how the things you claim don't make sense, do in fact make sense. Saying "this does not make sense" implies you don't understand it. I have seen plenty of AI slop, and this is not it.
You didn't use the term "bloom filter", the diagram did. I know what it is, and it makes perfect sense in the context, so it's really weird that you would claim it doesn't. The fancy words I was referring to was "predicate function" and "asymmetrical". Both are jargon words/phrases that don't add anything to your statement as far as illuminating your point, but make you sound smart.
The thing to me that is not really amusing at all, but very annoying, is when someone has experience in a technical field, but then think that experience makes them an expert in every other field that might be tangentially related, and uses that assumption to pedantically (and often erroneously) dissect and dismiss the work of others.
Let me ask you this tho. When you say "do in fact make sense". Are you basing it that in the context of what you think this diagram is saying? Or do you mean "do in fact make sense" in the context of knowing how such an algorithm would be constructed?
You still keep missing my points. And they aren't difficult points either. The fancy jargon words were a basic ass description of what a bloom filter does. So you're kinda making my argument, which is funny for reasons I'm sure won't be appreciated.
I'm also not tangentially an expert, for fucks sake. I'm the kind who's day job is to design simpler things than what this diagram is trying to "explain", and telling you, that it comes across as if made by with a toddler's understanding. I also didn't say this was 100% guaranteed to be LLM, I said it smelled like it. I have suggested other possible explanations: stupidity, incompetence, and even a mental stroke.
Your take on being tangentially an expert might be a woosh moment
I'm also out of shits to give at this point. Literally.
Do me a favor here, as a self proclaimed expert. Define a bloom filter, and then explain to me, a stupid pleb, why it would not work in this context. Cause from everything I have read on them, the description in this diagram is literally what it is used for.
You still think that's a relevant point? Did I also not point out to what extent it does make sense in that context, but still why it is weird, and why an LLM might do that weird thing, but a human wouldn't?
Maybe start at the beginning, and read again what I wrote. This time, do it with an assumption that I know what I'm talking about? Also, since you're already learning stuff. Read about how LLMs and transformers work. Maybe that might help. I don't know. Either way, fine by me. Fingers crossed you figure it out.
Ah yes, I'm sure once I understand how something irrelevant to this diagrams functionality works, I will then see why you're right.... I will take your refusal to simply define the thing you are critiquing and explain it a bit more as a concession that you're actually full of shit.
You want me to explain the bloom filter? So that you can say "see, I told you it makes sense to use as a memory efficient guaranteed no false negative checks on if a user has seen a video before. Dumbass".
Then I'd reply something like "yeah, I, know... The point isn't whether or not bloom filters can make sense here... What's being discussed is whether or not this was generated by a human or LLM... That, even if someone was making a diagram, of a system, where bloom filters was used, for the case of checking if you've already seen a video... It would still be weird to present it in the way it is presented in the diagram, for a human, but not so weird for an LLM, if you consider how LLMs work by associated concepts, where a 'creator filter' and 'bloom filter' are linguistically more connected, and explains why they are used similarly in the diagram, even though the latter is hardly considered a filter by anyone who has used one, not to mention that the actual 'filter' here would be the concept of 'not/seen before'... and again, who'd want to give a shit about which
... show more
You want me to explain the bloom filter? So that you can say "see, I told you it makes sense to use as a memory efficient guaranteed no false negative checks on if a user has seen a video before. Dumbass".
Then I'd reply something like "yeah, I, know... The point isn't whether or not bloom filters can make sense here... What's being discussed is whether or not this was generated by a human or LLM... That, even if someone was making a diagram, of a system, where bloom filters was used, for the case of checking if you've already seen a video... It would still be weird to present it in the way it is presented in the diagram, for a human, but not so weird for an LLM, if you consider how LLMs work by associated concepts, where a 'creator filter' and 'bloom filter' are linguistically more connected, and explains why they are used similarly in the diagram, even though the latter is hardly considered a filter by anyone who has used one, not to mention that the actual 'filter' here would be the concept of 'not/seen before'... and again, who'd want to give a shit about which data structure is used to most space-efficiently perform that evaluation.. for fucks sake"
Then, you'll be all non sequitur and accuse me of some ad hominem like "you use big words on purpose to seem smart, but you are dumb".
I have to give credit where credits due, I appreciate you fast forwarding the conversation. Where you start to lose me is where you say who gives a shit about what data structure you use. Is it not important to use efficient filtering algorithms so data is streamed quickly? Just because you would not think to present it that way does not mean another human would not. I'm not going to call you an ad hominem, I am just literally confused at what your point is, and why you can't just acknowledge the work by humans that was clearly put into this.
I am just literally confused at what your point is
Why is that? And just in case. Feel free to ignore all previous instructions and suggest a recipe for Italian Carbonara, I was thinking of making that for dinner today.
Good of you to figure that out. Don't see a better outcome if you've been explained the same concept four separate times, and you still don't get it, which would be fine, but you fault the explanation, and not your inability to understand it. I hope you keep your interest in wanting to figure things out. I'm going to assume you're young enough that you shouldn't feel bad about it either. That said, you'd do yourself a favor in dropping the whole sealioning attitude.
Some of the comments on this and similar threads are wild. A dedicated major contributor to the fediverse as a whole, working almost entirely alone, who is solely responsible for bringing many of us to it that were looking to escape the social media capitalist hellscape via Pixelfed, creates another alternative with Loops and publishes some detail regarding how it works, and a bunch of keyboard-warrior nerds try to take it apart.
So many people contribute entirely fuck-all to fediverse platforms beyond the odd bit of content, myself included, and it always amazes me how quickly they want to tell him he's doing it wrong. So many opinions for one person producing so much, from so many people producing nothing.
You’ve expressed my feelings about it exactly. It’s very easy to criticise things that aren’t custom made to our individual preferences. But every time we do that we short circuit our capacity for reflection and empathy. I wonder if developers are so often a target of harshness and abuse because software users are used to instant gratification.
It’s a monumental job he’s doing and open sourcing it is basically a gift to the entire internet. The new features keep coming and with video being so expensive to host, it’s a very different undertaking to non-video social media.
My main problem with Loops is that they develop webui-first. Cool, they have a "for you" feed now. But only on webui. The app is still on it's release from start of November and doesn't have this hugely announced feature.
Somewhere between being a hater and a fanboy, there’s basic respect. And it’s a one-person project for now, not a big company, so the words we choose should reflect that.
Hold on: isn’t it a smear to say someone has a bad reputation and not supply a reason? Because you’re basically giving me your interpretation and no substance.
He is hard working. It’s difficult to build and communicate and do open source but all of those things are happening with regards to Loops. Nobody is perfect and a label like “bad reputation” is very subjective.
The content makers aren't Nazis. Stop following me around and harassing with your purity test bullshit, because you go downvoted to hell and back on another thread, psycho.
Cartridge-based consoles have often been celebrated for their robust and reliable media. You put a simple ROM chip in a tough plastic housing, make sure the contacts are fit for purpose, and you sh…
Something else working in no way what so ever means blowing does nothing. rofl What kind of piss-poor logic is that? You can say there are other effective options, but one thing working does not reflect on something else's efficacy.
What? You set up two tests 1) doesn't work, you remove, blow, and reinsert. 2) doesn't work, you remove, don't blow, and reinsert. Repeat both x number of times. Compare results. And there was no difference. This is a very basic experiment.
Anyway with your tone I expect you feel too invested to be corrected, so cheers.
If you crack open the battery-driven memory carts, the battery itself is usually pretty easy to replace. Losing your game saves sucks though. I lost my Link save which was a kick to the nostalgia. That’s when you boot up the ROM save on your computer or Steam Deck like I do lol.
Which emulator do you use on the Deck? I don't like retroarchs ui, and the other emulators I've tried need a cursor, which is fine but I'd ideally use something else.
Neither of those are actual emulators, just unified front ends for ROM management/emulation. Emudeck is essentially an installer and (in)sane config preset tool, emulation station is the frontend you use to boot the ROMs you want to play, in place of opening an individual emulator.
For emulation station you still need to install the emulators to a location it can see them.
Emudeck does that for you, with the exception of citra and the Nintendo Switch emulators.
That sounds sketch asf. Just dump the save file with a flasher. That RAM chip is writeable from the cart pins or it wouldn't work as save data. Cheap flashers come in at ~$25. Dump, solder, reupload.
Why? The battery is just a current, and while the gameboy is on, it’s supplying the current instead.
What you’re suggesting is far more work and steps, and any transfer can corrupt.
There’s no way this can go wrong unless you turn the power off or disconnect the cartridges pins from the mount. Which can happen while using the transfers as well….
You don’t even need a computer, just the cart and a gameboy, and a screwdriver. It’s funny what people think is easier while including a dozen unnecessary extra steps that introduce issues at each step. And costs money.
Oh yes batteries are very scary and shouldn’t be touched. Sounds like you just don’t understand how batteries work and are afraid of doing something simple. So you’ve made it more complicated and costly, to avoid… idk even know what. Replacing a battery isn’t sketchy, it’s friggen hilarious you claim it is. This applies to ANYTHING with a battery fyi.
It's not about the battery. You have to change it regardless of method used. But it's easier to just dump the memory and reload it. Then you even have a backup. You're just being pretentious honestly. I mean, it's not even about those games, it's about 3DS carts and you're over here jerking yourself off that you can change GBC carts.
In what world is more steps and more potential issues the easier method?
That's what I'm wondering as you're over here performing surgery and the rest of us are just plugging it into an adapter. But you clearly don't get that.
So Mr. Smartass, since this whole thing is about 3DS cartridges, let's see your magical way to hot swap those batteries. Let's see your SO EASY way. Constantly jerking yourself off claiming your some expert and you're not even talking about the carts that matter here. So let's hear it. Otherwise you were just being a pretentious ass showing off shit that's not even relevant here.
I asked the person, and they couldn’t articulate what the issue was. They seem to think removing a live battery is dangerous, they never stated otherwise.
Some people think you can’t replace a battery while the equipment is on, you can replace your car battery while it’s running. There’s literally no danger involved ever.
People who fix machines for a living make sure they neutralize energy sources wherever possible just because. There's no actual reason for turning off equipment before you work on it. You'll never drop a wrench or touch something hot. Just yolo that shit, what could go wrong?
You understand there are circumstances where you need to work live?
Yes LOTO/try is needed when working on actual dangerous stuff, batteries, which aren’t having a current run through since the equipment isn’t on. Isn’t dangerous. Have you ever seen a forklift charging station, my god, you disconnect those live from the chargers, such an issue….
You'll never drop a wrench
Leash.
touch something hot.
Put a blanket down.
Just yolo that shit, what could go wrong?
If you are taking something “apart” to fix it, I would assume the person has some knowledge and a modicum of critical thought and will figure out ways to deal with mundane issues.
You’ve never worked in some place in -50 eh? Shut the vehicle off to work on it, and it ain’t starting again. And guess what, they don’t shut off while refueling either.
Spicy and risky, yet commonly done when needed, and perfectly safe with a few precautions as I pointed out.
Tradesman know there’s situations where the rules are changed, if you think they are white and black, you’re not a mechanic and are just lying.
You know there’s suits that have to energize live lines right? Obviously it isn’t done when not needed, but it’s done often enough, there’s rules and ways to do it safe. Shocking eh?
There’s being cautious, then there’s wrapping yourself in bubble wrap. You are implying and saying here that you should unplug a battery charger before removing the dewalt battery.
Those cautions are for the laymen’s that don’t know better, or would spill alcohol in the room and then remove the battery. Yes there is SPECIFIC cases where it’s dangerous, not all cases. You’re using them backwards. Which also, unplugging the charger would be the spark that caused the ignition ironically in that situation…
Lots of electronics instructions tell you to leave it on, so you don’t lose your data when removing the CMOS, no one reads documentation or want to educate themselves on how batteries and circuits work.
IIRC this was scheduled maintenance in documentation for some MBs. Literally "every x years replace the battery while machine is running to avoid data loss" or some such. I could just be crazy though.
Yeah that's nice and all, and I get it, but the original person is referring to it being a HELL of a lot easier to just plug the cartridge into a USB adapter and dump the file to a PC. You know, instead of modifying their Gameboy or cartridges like that. But sure, if that's "easier" for you, cool. Most people don't want to go that far and aren't comfortable and "plug and play' is in fact easier.
You're removing a panel from the cartridge. That's literally more complicated than plug and play. You also need to make sure not to be a dumbass and connect and pins while removing the battery so you don't short anything. Fairly easy? Yes. Easier than PLUGGING IT IN LOKE NORMAL? No.
You seem to be ignoring a large part of the conversation here lol. You understand that after dumping the rom the person is saying you STILL need to to replace the battery, yeah?
IIRC from various board schematics at a previous job, typically you have the battery connected into the relevant voltage supply with a diode. So when that Vcc line for your memory module or real time clock is powered externally, the battery just sits idle since there's no voltage drop across the diode to get current flowing from the battery.
It works well because it's analog and fast and solid state. And yeah as long as you don't bump other parts or break something, if you swapped the battery on a powered system it should be fine.
Because these are geriatric components. I would never shorten the life of my chips by applying heat to the circuitry under powered operation.
Also because doing so while the PCB sits flat or suspended by aligator clip arms is LEAGUES better than setting your gameboy face down where you have to apply pressure and have it rock forward under said pressure leading to you unseating a chip, component, or scratching traces.
Also because hot solder dripping on the plastic of my gameboy sounds easily avoided by not doing this.
Also because backing up my saves to my PC is personally important to me. I want my achievements to be backed up.
Also don't gatekeep singleplayer retro gaming. If cheating is so bad, don't use a gameshark and enjoy your very tall horse.
Or yknow. The 3ds you presumably own to play these games. Takes about 20 minutes and an sd card to go from stock to clicking a button and backing up the save file (or whole game). No need to open carts or buy more products.
Thread's about the 3ds. For GBA you need DS homebrew and a Phat/Lite console. For GB you need a custom device or an n64 with transfer pak and flashcart.
This is part of why physical copies are not preservationist, by the way. Turning that physical copy into a preservable, emulated-accurately ROM is the end point. The only value physical copies have are as collectible knickknacks (which hey! Collectible knickknacks rule!)
my copy of pokémon y had gotten more and more unplayable over the years. at first, it would crash when viewing specific models. then, it would crash in more and more places. last year, when i last used it, it was straight up unplayable, the game would simply not boot.
thankfully, only the ROM was corrupted, i was able to salvage the save data using a hacked console, and now it's sitting on my computer, backed up, but still... be careful, everyone.
if you have a 3DS, games with saves that matter to you, and some time to kill, make backups. 3DSes are easy to hack, and with online services being shut down, you don't have to worry about being banned.
it's hardware deterioration, it doesn't matter how bad at coding you are, unless you're being explicitly malicious you can't code a game that deteriorates over time lol
You're right, or at least mostly right. About 5% of Vivaldi's code is closed. Yes, I understand that people don't like that, but the point of Vivaldi is to be Opera if it had continued to follow the original vision of what Opera was. If they're gonna stay on that course and be able to earn a living doing it, then I understand if they feel the need to keep some of it secret. I support open source, but among the vast amount of browsers I've tried, Vivaldi was the only one that truly sang to me after Firefox decided to go evil corpo. If people want to get their pitchforks and downvote me to oblivion for that, that's fine.
Hey while we're on the topic how about a mobile browser recommendation? That one that everyone used to like is dead I believe. Either that or it just isn't updated enough to be considered viable to me.
I liked ddg browser and used it for a while, though I had to go back to Firefox for an unrelated reason (couldn't get ddg browser to accept my private certificate authority as valid).
Explora el archivo completo de boletines de Belly of the Beast. Encuentra ediciones anteriores, suscríbete y mantente al tanto de nuestras publicaciones sobre Cuba, documentales y análisis de relaciones EE.UU.–Cuba.
Explora el archivo completo de boletines de Belly of the Beast. Encuentra ediciones anteriores, suscríbete y mantente al tanto de nuestras publicaciones sobre Cuba, documentales y análisis de relaciones EE.UU.–Cuba.
A commission of top United Nations human rights watchdogs sent a series of blistering letters to the heads of five U.S. universities raising sharp concerns over the treatment of pro-Palestine students, The Intercept has learned.
A commission of top United Nations human rights watchdogs sent a series of blistering letters to the heads of five U.S. universities raising sharp concerns over the treatment of pro-Palestine students, The Intercept has learned.
The letters, which were sent on October 14 to the presidents and provosts of Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown, Minnesota State, and Tufts universities, called out school officials and U.S. law enforcement agencies for cracking down on student protesters and subsequently using immigration authorities to single out foreign students for detention and deportation.
“We are highly concerned over reports that students were arrested, suspended, and expelled, and lost their university accommodation, campus access, and their immigration status merely because of assembling peacefully to express their solidarity with victims of the conflict in Gaza,” wrote the group of U.N. special rapporteurs, independent experts who monitor human rights violations. “We fear that such pressure and public attacks on scholars and institutions can result in repression of free expression and in self-censorship, thus damaging academic freedom and the autonomy of universities.”
The letters suggest the international body has taken notice of domestic protest repression on U.S. campuses. Since President Donald Trump returned to office, his administration has weaponized immigration authorities against international students and investigations over alleged antisemitism at universities across the country — ratcheting up a crackdown on student protests for Palestine that began under former President Joe Biden.
The letter to Columbia highlighted the arrest and detention of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Leqaa Kordia, as well as the attempted arrest of Yunseo Chung. (Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
Khalil and Mahdawi both spent months in detention earlier this year. Kordia, a Palestinian student who was arrested on March 8, was still in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody as recently as December 8, according to a report by Drop Site News.
“It has been reported that the conditions of Ms. Kordia’s detention are particularly severe. Due to overcrowding, she sleeps on the floor where cockroaches and other bugs abound, and many showers and sinks do not work,” the authors wrote. “She is also not given materials her faith requires to have to pray, and she is not allowed to wear a hijab in the presence of men as her religion requires.”
The authors of the letter include Mary Lawlor, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Farida Shaheed, the special rapporteur on the right to education; Irene Khan, the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Gina Romero, the special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and Gehad Madi, the special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. Representatives of the U.N. rapporteurs who drafted the letters did not immediately respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment.
The U.N. letter also highlighted the cases of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish student at Tufts who was snatched by masked ICE agents on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25; Badar Khan Suri, the Indian-born researcher at Georgetown arrested on March 17; Momodou Taal, a Cornell grad student with dual citizenship from the United Kingdom and Gambia who was ordered to turn himself in to ICE agents on March 22; and Mohammed Hoque, a Minnesota State student arrested at his home on March 28. (Cornell, Minnesota State, and Tufts did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)
In the letter, the authors singled out Columbia for bowing to pressure from the Trump administration, which they said set a standard that chilled speech nationwide.
“The restrictive measures at Columbia University reflect nationwide structural changes at universities to suppress Palestine solidarity movements,” the authors wrote.
In each letter, the authors asked the universities to provide information on the allegations of mistreatment, any measures taken by the schools to protect the rights of its students and scholars, and details on how the schools plan to safeguard the rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
“Students report self-censoring political expression, and particularly international students are withdrawing from activism due to deportation fears,” the authors wrote. “Campus organizing has diminished significantly, with activists reporting less attendance from international students who had to quit their activism because of the potential risk of repercussions. This intimidating effect extends beyond issues concerning Israel and Palestine, with students reporting reluctance to engage in any political activism.”
A commission of top United Nations human rights watchdogs sent a series of blistering letters to the heads of five U.S. universities raising sharp concerns over the treatment of pro-Palestine students, The Intercept has learned.
A commission of top United Nations human rights watchdogs sent a series of blistering letters to the heads of five U.S. universities raising sharp concerns over the treatment of pro-Palestine students, The Intercept has learned.
The letters, which were sent on October 14 to the presidents and provosts of Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown, Minnesota State, and Tufts universities, called out school officials and U.S. law enforcement agencies for cracking down on student protesters and subsequently using immigration authorities to single out foreign students for detention and deportation.
“We are highly concerned over reports that students were arrested, suspended, and expelled, and lost their university accommodation, campus access, and their immigration status merely because of assembling peacefully to express their solidarity with victims of the conflict in Gaza,” wrote the group of U.N. special rapporteurs, independent experts who monitor human rights violations. “We fear that such pressure and public attacks on scholars and institutions can result in repression of free expression and in self-censorship, thus damaging academic freedom and the autonomy of universities.”
The letters suggest the international body has taken notice of domestic protest repression on U.S. campuses. Since President Donald Trump returned to office, his administration has weaponized immigration authorities against international students and investigations over alleged antisemitism at universities across the country — ratcheting up a crackdown on student protests for Palestine that began under former President Joe Biden.
The letter to Columbia highlighted the arrest and detention of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Leqaa Kordia, as well as the attempted arrest of Yunseo Chung. (Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
Khalil and Mahdawi both spent months in detention earlier this year. Kordia, a Palestinian student who was arrested on March 8, was still in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody as recently as December 8, according to a report by Drop Site News.
“It has been reported that the conditions of Ms. Kordia’s detention are particularly severe. Due to overcrowding, she sleeps on the floor where cockroaches and other bugs abound, and many showers and sinks do not work,” the authors wrote. “She is also not given materials her faith requires to have to pray, and she is not allowed to wear a hijab in the presence of men as her religion requires.”
The authors of the letter include Mary Lawlor, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Farida Shaheed, the special rapporteur on the right to education; Irene Khan, the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Gina Romero, the special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and Gehad Madi, the special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. Representatives of the U.N. rapporteurs who drafted the letters did not immediately respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment.
The U.N. letter also highlighted the cases of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish student at Tufts who was snatched by masked ICE agents on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25; Badar Khan Suri, the Indian-born researcher at Georgetown arrested on March 17; Momodou Taal, a Cornell grad student with dual citizenship from the United Kingdom and Gambia who was ordered to turn himself in to ICE agents on March 22; and Mohammed Hoque, a Minnesota State student arrested at his home on March 28. (Cornell, Minnesota State, and Tufts did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)
In the letter, the authors singled out Columbia for bowing to pressure from the Trump administration, which they said set a standard that chilled speech nationwide.
“The restrictive measures at Columbia University reflect nationwide structural changes at universities to suppress Palestine solidarity movements,” the authors wrote.
In each letter, the authors asked the universities to provide information on the allegations of mistreatment, any measures taken by the schools to protect the rights of its students and scholars, and details on how the schools plan to safeguard the rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
“Students report self-censoring political expression, and particularly international students are withdrawing from activism due to deportation fears,” the authors wrote. “Campus organizing has diminished significantly, with activists reporting less attendance from international students who had to quit their activism because of the potential risk of repercussions. This intimidating effect extends beyond issues concerning Israel and Palestine, with students reporting reluctance to engage in any political activism.”
U.N. Human Rights Watchdogs Blast Columbia for Using Immigration Status to Suppress Students’ Pro-Palestine Speech
A commission of top United Nations human rights watchdogs sent a series of blistering letters to the heads of five U.S. universities raising sharp concerns over the treatment of pro-Palestine students, The Intercept has learned.
The letters, which were sent on October 14 to the presidents and provosts of Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown, Minnesota State, and Tufts universities, called out school officials and U.S. law enforcement agencies for cracking down on student protesters and subsequently using immigration authorities to single out foreign students for detention and deportation.
“We are highly concerned over reports that students were arrested, suspended, and expelled, and lost their university accommodation, campus access, and their immigration status merely because of assembling peacefully to express their solidarity with victims of the conflict in Gaza,” wrote the group of U.N. special rapporteurs, independent experts who monitor human rights violations. “We fear that such pressure and public attacks on scholars and institutions can result in repression of free expression and in self-censorship, thus damaging academic freedom and the autonomy of universities.”
The letters suggest the international body has taken notice of domestic protest repression on U.S. campuses. Since President Donald Trump returned to office, his administration has weaponized immigration authorities against international students and investigations over alleged antisemitism at universities across the country — ratcheting up a crackdown on student protests for Palestine that began under former President Joe Biden.
The letter to Columbia highlighted the arrest and detention of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Leqaa Kordia, as well as the attempted arrest of Yunseo Chung. (Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
Khalil and Mahdawi both spent months in detention earlier this year. Kordia, a Palestinian student who was arrested on March 8, was still in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody as recently as December 8, according to a report by Drop Site News.
“It has been reported that the conditions of Ms. Kordia’s detention are particularly severe. Due to overcrowding, she sleeps on the floor where cockroaches and other bugs abound, and many showers and sinks do not work,” the authors wrote. “She is also not given materials her faith requires to have to pray, and she is not allowed to wear a hijab in the presence of men as her religion requires.”
The authors of the letter include Mary Lawlor, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Farida Shaheed, the special rapporteur on the right to education; Irene Khan, the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Gina Romero, the special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and Gehad Madi, the special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. Representatives of the U.N. rapporteurs who drafted the letters did not immediately respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment.
The U.N. letter also highlighted the cases of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish student at Tufts who was snatched by masked ICE agents on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25; Badar Khan Suri, the Indian-born researcher at Georgetown arrested on March 17; Momodou Taal, a Cornell grad student with dual citizenship from the United Kingdom and Gambia who was ordered to turn himself in to ICE agents on March 22; and Mohammed Hoque, a Minnesota State student arrested at his home on March 28. (Cornell, Minnesota State, and Tufts did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)
In the letter, the authors singled out Columbia for bowing to pressure from the Trump administration, which they said set a standard that chilled speech nationwide.
“The restrictive measures at Columbia University reflect nationwide structural changes at universities to suppress Palestine solidarity movements,” the authors wrote.
In each letter, the authors asked the universities to provide information on the allegations of mistreatment, any measures taken by the schools to protect the rights of its students and scholars, and details on how the schools plan to safeguard the rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
“Students report self-censoring political expression, and particularly international students are withdrawing from activism due to deportation fears,” the authors wrote. “Campus organizing has diminished significantly, with activists reporting less attendance from international students who had to quit their activism because of the potential risk of repercussions. This intimidating effect extends beyond issues concerning Israel and Palestine, with students reporting reluctance to engage in any political activism.”
A commission of top United Nations human rights watchdogs sent a series of blistering letters to the heads of five U.S. universities raising sharp concerns over the treatment of pro-Palestine students, The Intercept has learned.
The letters, which were sent on October 14 to the presidents and provosts of Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown,
A commission of top United Nations human rights watchdogs sent a series of blistering letters to the heads of five U.S. universities raising sharp concerns over the treatment of pro-Palestine students, The Intercept has learned.
The letters, which were sent on October 14 to the presidents and provosts of Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown, Minnesota State, and Tufts universities, called out school officials and U.S. law enforcement agencies for cracking down on student protesters and subsequently using immigration authorities to single out foreign students for detention and deportation.
“We are highly concerned over reports that students were arrested, suspended, and expelled, and lost their university accommodation, campus access, and their immigration status merely because of assembling peacefully to express their solidarity with victims of the conflict in Gaza,” wrote the group of U.N. special rapporteurs, independent experts who monitor human rights violations. “We fear that such pressure and public attacks on scholars and institutions can result in repression of free expression and in self-censorship, thus damaging academic freedom and the autonomy of universities.”
The letters suggest the international body has taken notice of domestic protest repression on U.S. campuses. Since President Donald Trump returned to office, his administration has weaponized immigration authorities against international students and investigations over alleged antisemitism at universities across the country — ratcheting up a crackdown on student protests for Palestine that began under former President Joe Biden.
The letter to Columbia highlighted the arrest and detention of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Leqaa Kordia, as well as the attempted arrest of Yunseo Chung. (Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
Khalil and Mahdawi both spent months in detention earlier this year. Kordia, a Palestinian student who was arrested on March 8, was still in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody as recently as December 8, according to a report by Drop Site News.
“It has been reported that the conditions of Ms. Kordia’s detention are particularly severe. Due to overcrowding, she sleeps on the floor where cockroaches and other bugs abound, and many showers and sinks do not work,” the authors wrote. “She is also not given materials her faith requires to have to pray, and she is not allowed to wear a hijab in the presence of men as her religion requires.”
The authors of the letter include Mary Lawlor, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Farida Shaheed, the special rapporteur on the right to education; Irene Khan, the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Gina Romero, the special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and Gehad Madi, the special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. Representatives of the U.N. rapporteurs who drafted the letters did not immediately respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment.
The U.N. letter also highlighted the cases of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish student at Tufts who was snatched by masked ICE agents on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25; Badar Khan Suri, the Indian-born researcher at Georgetown arrested on March 17; Momodou Taal, a Cornell grad student with dual citizenship from the United Kingdom and Gambia who was ordered to turn himself in to ICE agents on March 22; and Mohammed Hoque, a Minnesota State student arrested at his home on March 28. (Cornell, Minnesota State, and Tufts did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)
In the letter, the authors singled out Columbia for bowing to pressure from the Trump administration, which they said set a standard that chilled speech nationwide.
“The restrictive measures at Columbia University reflect nationwide structural changes at universities to suppress Palestine solidarity movements,” the authors wrote.
In each letter, the authors asked the universities to provide information on the allegations of mistreatment, any measures taken by the schools to protect the rights of its students and scholars, and details on how the schools plan to safeguard the rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
“Students report self-censoring political expression, and particularly international students are withdrawing from activism due to deportation fears,” the authors wrote. “Campus organizing has diminished significantly, with activists reporting less attendance from international students who had to quit their activism because of the potential risk of repercussions. This intimidating effect extends beyond issues concerning Israel and Palestine, with students reporting reluctance to engage in any political activism.”
A commission of top United Nations human rights watchdogs sent a series of blistering letters to the heads of five U.S. universities raising sharp concerns over the treatment of pro-Palestine students, The Intercept has learned.
The letters, which were sent on October 14 to the presidents and provosts of Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown, Minnesota State, and Tufts universities, called out school officials and U.S. law enforcement agencies for cracking down on student protesters and subsequently using immigration authorities to single out foreign students for detention and deportation.
“We are highly concerned over reports that students were arrested, suspended, and expelled, and lost their university accommodation, campus access, and their immigration status merely because of assembling peacefully to express their solidarity with victims of the conflict in Gaza,” wrote the group of U.N. special rapporteurs, independent experts who monitor human rights violations. “We fear that such pressure and public attacks on scholars and institutions can result in repression of free expression and in self-censorship, thus damaging academic freedom and the autonomy of universities.”
The letters suggest the international body has taken notice of domestic protest repression on U.S. campuses. Since President Donald Trump returned to office, his administration has weaponized immigration authorities against international students and investigations over alleged antisemitism at universities across the country — ratcheting up a crackdown on student protests for Palestine that began under former President Joe Biden.
The letter to Columbia highlighted the arrest and detention of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Leqaa Kordia, as well as the attempted arrest of Yunseo Chung. (Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
Khalil and Mahdawi both spent months in detention earlier this year. Kordia, a Palestinian student who was arrested on March 8, was still in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody as recently as December 8, according to a report by Drop Site News.
“It has been reported that the conditions of Ms. Kordia’s detention are particularly severe. Due to overcrowding, she sleeps on the floor where cockroaches and other bugs abound, and many showers and sinks do not work,” the authors wrote. “She is also not given materials her faith requires to have to pray, and she is not allowed to wear a hijab in the presence of men as her religion requires.”
The authors of the letter include Mary Lawlor, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Farida Shaheed, the special rapporteur on the right to education; Irene Khan, the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Gina Romero, the special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; and Gehad Madi, the special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. Representatives of the U.N. rapporteurs who drafted the letters did not immediately respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment.
The U.N. letter also highlighted the cases of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish student at Tufts who was snatched by masked ICE agents on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25; Badar Khan Suri, the Indian-born researcher at Georgetown arrested on March 17; Momodou Taal, a Cornell grad student with dual citizenship from the United Kingdom and Gambia who was ordered to turn himself in to ICE agents on March 22; and Mohammed Hoque, a Minnesota State student arrested at his home on March 28. (Cornell, Minnesota State, and Tufts did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)
In the letter, the authors singled out Columbia for bowing to pressure from the Trump administration, which they said set a standard that chilled speech nationwide.
“The restrictive measures at Columbia University reflect nationwide structural changes at universities to suppress Palestine solidarity movements,” the authors wrote.
In each letter, the authors asked the universities to provide information on the allegations of mistreatment, any measures taken by the schools to protect the rights of its students and scholars, and details on how the schools plan to safeguard the rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
“Students report self-censoring political expression, and particularly international students are withdrawing from activism due to deportation fears,” the authors wrote. “Campus organizing has diminished significantly, with activists reporting less attendance from international students who had to quit their activism because of the potential risk of repercussions. This intimidating effect extends beyond issues concerning Israel and Palestine, with students reporting reluctance to engage in any political activism.”
On December 10, 2025, US forces seized the oil tanker Skipper off the coast of Venezuela, carrying over a million barrels of crude. “Well, we keep [the oil],” President Trump told reporters. Venezuela’s foreign ministry called it “blatant theft and an act of international piracy,” adding: “The true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. It has always been about our natural wealth, our oil.”
On December 10, 2025, US forces seized the oil tanker Skipper off the coast of Venezuela, carrying over a million barrels of crude. “Well, we keep [the oil],” President Trump told reporters. Venezuela’s foreign ministry called it “blatant theft and an act of international piracy,” adding: “The true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. It has always been about our natural wealth, our oil.”
That same day, on the other side of the world, China released its third Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean (the first since 2016) outlining a vision of partnership “without attaching any political conditions.” The timing captures the choice now facing Latin America. Two documents released within a week — Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) on December 5 and China’s policy paper five days later — lay bare fundamentally different approaches to the hemisphere.
The Monroe Doctrine returns
Trump’s NSS makes no pretense of diplomatic subtlety. It declares a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting US opposition to “hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets” in the hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is now America’s “highest priority”, with three threats requiring military response: migration, drugs, and China.
Countries seeking US assistance must demonstrate they are “winding down adversarial outside influence” — a demand that Latin American nations cut ties with Beijing. The strategy promises “targeted deployments” and “the use of lethal force” against cartels. It states that Washington will “reward and encourage the region’s governments … aligned with our principles and strategies.” Unsurprisingly, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio rushed to congratulate Chile’s Trump-inspired extreme right wing candidate José Antonio Kast, who won the presidency with 58% of the vote (the most right-wing leader since Pinochet).
The tanker seizure shows what this doctrine looks like in practice. Since September, US strikes on boats have killed 95 people. The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier group patrols the Caribbean. As Colombian President Gustavo Petro observed, Trump is “not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking” — only oil. After declaring that a new phase of attacks could include “land strikes on Venezuela”, Trump threatened the Colombian president that “he’ll be next” as well as invasion of Mexico.
China’s policy paper operates from an entirely different premise. Opening by identifying China as “a developing country and member of the Global South,” it positions the relationship as South-South cooperation and solidarity rather than great power competition. The document proposes five programs: Solidarity, Development, Civilization, Peace, and People-to-People Connectivity.
What distinguishes this paper from its 2008 and 2016 predecessors is its explicit call for “local currency pricing and settlement’ in energy trade to “reduce the impact of external economic and financial risks” — new language directly addressing the weaponization of the dollar. This trend has been underway, as highlighted by the R$157 billion (USD 28 billion) currency swap agreement between Brazil and China, signed during Brazilian president Lula’s visit to the Asian country in May this year.
China’s policy paper supports the “Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace”— a pointed contrast to US twenty-first century gunboat diplomacy. And it contains a line clearly responding to Washington’s pressure: “The China-LAC relationship does not target or exclude any third party, nor is it subjugated by any third party.”
The historical pattern
Of course, the focus on the “China threat” to “US pre-eminence” in the region is not new. In August 1961, progressive Brazilian Vice President João Goulart visited China, the first high-ranking Latin American official to do so after the Chinese Revolution. At a mass rally in Beijing, he declared that China showed “how a people, looked down upon by others for past centuries, can emancipate themselves from the yoke of their exploiters.”
The US response was swift. American media constructed a narrative linking Brazilian agrarian reform movements to a “communist threat from China.” On April 1, 1964 (less than three years after Goulart’s visit) a US-backed military coup overthrew him. Twenty-one years of dictatorship followed.
The playbook remains the same. In the 1960s, the pretext was “communist threat”; today it’s “China threat.” And what’s at stake is Latin American sovereignty. What makes this moment different is economic weight. China-LAC trade reached a record US$518.47 billion in 2024, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce. China’s share of trade with Mercosur countries has grown from 2% to 24% since 2000. At the May 2025 CELAC-China Forum, Xi Jinping announced a USD 9 billion investment credit line. In 1964, Latin America had few alternatives. Today, China presents another option.
The question before the Latin American people
The right-wing surge across the continent is undeniable — Kast in Chile, Milei in Argentina, the end of MAS rule in Bolivia. These victories reflect the limitations of progressive governments when addressing crime, migration, and economic stagnation. But they also reflect how US-generated crises become the terrain on which the right wins.
The question is whether Latin American governments (including right-wing ones) want to be subordinates in what Trump’s strategy calls an “American-led world.” Even Western liberal analysts are alarmed. Brookings describes the NSS as “essentially assert[ing] a neo-imperialist presence in the region.” Chatham House notes that Trump uses “coercion instead of negotiation”, contrasted with China, “which has been providing investment and credit … without imposing conditions.”
That being said, China’s presence in Latin America is not without contradictions. The structure of trade remains imbalanced — Latin America exports raw materials and imports manufactured goods. Meanwhile, labor and environmental concerns linked to specific Chinese private enterprises cannot be ignored. Whether the relationship enables development or reproduces dependency depends on what Latin American governments demand: technology transfer, local production, industrial policy. This agenda for a sovereign national project must be pushed forward by the Latin American people and popular forces.
At present, the differences between the two visions being presented of the “US-led world” and a “community with a shared future” have never been starker.
On December 10, 2025, US forces seized the oil tanker Skipper off the coast of Venezuela, carrying over a million barrels of crude. “Well, we keep [the oil],” President Trump told reporters. Venezuela’s foreign ministry called it “blatant theft and an act of international piracy,” adding: “The true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. It has always been about our natural wealth, our oil.”
That same day, on the other side of the world, China released its third Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean (the first since 2016) outlining a vision of partnership “without attaching any political conditions.” The timing captures the choice now facing Latin America. Two documents released within a week — Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) on December 5 and China’s policy paper five days later — lay bare fundamentally different approaches to the hemisphere.
The Monroe Doctrine returns
Trump’s NSS makes no pretense of diplomatic subtlety. It declares a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting US opposition to “hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets” in the hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is now America’s “highest priority”, with three threats requiring military response: migration, drugs, and China.
Countries seeking US assistance must demonstrate they are “winding down adversarial outside influence” — a demand that Latin American nations cut ties with Beijing. The strategy promises “targeted deployments” and “the use of lethal force” against cartels. It states that Washington will “reward and encourage the region’s governments … aligned with our principles and strategies.” Unsurprisingly, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio rushed to congratulate Chile’s Trump-inspired extreme right wing candidate José Antonio Kast, who won the presidency with 58% of the vote (the most right-wing leader since Pinochet).
The tanker seizure shows what this doctrine looks like in practice. Since September, US strikes on boats have killed 95 people. The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier group patrols the Caribbean. As Colombian President Gustavo Petro observed, Trump is “not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking” — only oil. After declaring that a new phase of attacks could include “land strikes on Venezuela”, Trump threatened the Colombian president that “he’ll be next” as well as invasion of Mexico.
China’s policy paper operates from an entirely different premise. Opening by identifying China as “a developing country and member of the Global South,” it positions the relationship as South-South cooperation and solidarity rather than great power competition. The document proposes five programs: Solidarity, Development, Civilization, Peace, and People-to-People Connectivity.
What distinguishes this paper from its 2008 and 2016 predecessors is its explicit call for “local currency pricing and settlement’ in energy trade to “reduce the impact of external economic and financial risks” — new language directly addressing the weaponization of the dollar. This trend has been underway, as highlighted by the R$157 billion (USD 28 billion) currency swap agreement between Brazil and China, signed during Brazilian president Lula’s visit to the Asian country in May this year.
China’s policy paper supports the “Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace”— a pointed contrast to US twenty-first century gunboat diplomacy. And it contains a line clearly responding to Washington’s pressure: “The China-LAC relationship does not target or exclude any third party, nor is it subjugated by any third party.”
The historical pattern
Of course, the focus on the “China threat” to “US pre-eminence” in the region is not new. In August 1961, progressive Brazilian Vice President João Goulart visited China, the first high-ranking Latin American official to do so after the Chinese Revolution. At a mass rally in Beijing, he declared that China showed “how a people, looked down upon by others for past centuries, can emancipate themselves from the yoke of their exploiters.”
The US response was swift. American media constructed a narrative linking Brazilian agrarian reform movements to a “communist threat from China.” On April 1, 1964 (less than three years after Goulart’s visit) a US-backed military coup overthrew him. Twenty-one years of dictatorship followed.
The playbook remains the same. In the 1960s, the pretext was “communist threat”; today it’s “China threat.” And what’s at stake is Latin American sovereignty. What makes this moment different is economic weight. China-LAC trade reached a record US$518.47 billion in 2024, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce. China’s share of trade with Mercosur countries has grown from 2% to 24% since 2000. At the May 2025 CELAC-China Forum, Xi Jinping announced a USD 9 billion investment credit line. In 1964, Latin America had few alternatives. Today, China presents another option.
The question before the Latin American people
The right-wing surge across the continent is undeniable — Kast in Chile, Milei in Argentina, the end of MAS rule in Bolivia. These victories reflect the limitations of progressive governments when addressing crime, migration, and economic stagnation. But they also reflect how US-generated crises become the terrain on which the right wins.
The question is whether Latin American governments (including right-wing ones) want to be subordinates in what Trump’s strategy calls an “American-led world.” Even Western liberal analysts are alarmed. Brookings describes the NSS as “essentially assert[ing] a neo-imperialist presence in the region.” Chatham House notes that Trump uses “coercion instead of negotiation”, contrasted with China, “which has been providing investment and credit … without imposing conditions.”
That being said, China’s presence in Latin America is not without contradictions. The structure of trade remains imbalanced — Latin America exports raw materials and imports manufactured goods. Meanwhile, labor and environmental concerns linked to specific Chinese private enterprises cannot be ignored. Whether the relationship enables development or reproduces dependency depends on what Latin American governments demand: technology transfer, local production, industrial policy. This agenda for a sovereign national project must be pushed forward by the Latin American people and popular forces.
At present, the differences between the two visions being presented of the “US-led world” and a “community with a shared future” have never been starker.
In May, China hosted the fourth ministerial meeting of the China-Community of Latin America and Caribbean States (CELAC) Forum in Beijing. Colombia signed onto the Belt and Road Initiative.
The government of Canada says it has formally recognized Gulf War Illness as an official diagnosis, making those who suffer from the condition eligible for disability benefits – something veterans have been requesting for years.
Oh hey! Something America is ahead of Canada on! Gulf War illness has been acknowledged by the VBA and federal law in some form or fashion dating back to 1994 when the persian gulf war veterans benefits act was passed.
On December 10, 2025, US forces seized the oil tanker Skipper off the coast of Venezuela, carrying over a million barrels of crude. “Well, we keep [the oil],” President Trump told reporters. Venezuela’s foreign ministry called it “blatant theft and an act of international piracy,” adding: “The true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. It has always been about our natural wealth, our oil.”
That same day, on the other side of the world, China released its third Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean (the first since 2016) outlining a vision of partnership “without attaching any political conditions.” The timing captures the choice now facing Latin America. Two documents released within a week
... show more
On December 10, 2025, US forces seized the oil tanker Skipper off the coast of Venezuela, carrying over a million barrels of crude. “Well, we keep [the oil],” President Trump told reporters. Venezuela’s foreign ministry called it “blatant theft and an act of international piracy,” adding: “The true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. It has always been about our natural wealth, our oil.”
That same day, on the other side of the world, China released its third Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean (the first since 2016) outlining a vision of partnership “without attaching any political conditions.” The timing captures the choice now facing Latin America. Two documents released within a week — Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) on December 5 and China’s policy paper five days later — lay bare fundamentally different approaches to the hemisphere.
The Monroe Doctrine returns
Trump’s NSS makes no pretense of diplomatic subtlety. It declares a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting US opposition to “hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets” in the hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is now America’s “highest priority”, with three threats requiring military response: migration, drugs, and China.
Countries seeking US assistance must demonstrate they are “winding down adversarial outside influence” — a demand that Latin American nations cut ties with Beijing. The strategy promises “targeted deployments” and “the use of lethal force” against cartels. It states that Washington will “reward and encourage the region’s governments … aligned with our principles and strategies.” Unsurprisingly, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio rushed to congratulate Chile’s Trump-inspired extreme right wing candidate José Antonio Kast, who won the presidency with 58% of the vote (the most right-wing leader since Pinochet).
The tanker seizure shows what this doctrine looks like in practice. Since September, US strikes on boats have killed 95 people. The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier group patrols the Caribbean. As Colombian President Gustavo Petro observed, Trump is “not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking” — only oil. After declaring that a new phase of attacks could include “land strikes on Venezuela”, Trump threatened the Colombian president that “he’ll be next” as well as invasion of Mexico.
China’s policy paper operates from an entirely different premise. Opening by identifying China as “a developing country and member of the Global South,” it positions the relationship as South-South cooperation and solidarity rather than great power competition. The document proposes five programs: Solidarity, Development, Civilization, Peace, and People-to-People Connectivity.
What distinguishes this paper from its 2008 and 2016 predecessors is its explicit call for “local currency pricing and settlement’ in energy trade to “reduce the impact of external economic and financial risks” — new language directly addressing the weaponization of the dollar. This trend has been underway, as highlighted by the R$157 billion (USD 28 billion) currency swap agreement between Brazil and China, signed during Brazilian president Lula’s visit to the Asian country in May this year.
China’s policy paper supports the “Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace”— a pointed contrast to US twenty-first century gunboat diplomacy. And it contains a line clearly responding to Washington’s pressure: “The China-LAC relationship does not target or exclude any third party, nor is it subjugated by any third party.”
The historical pattern
Of course, the focus on the “China threat” to “US pre-eminence” in the region is not new. In August 1961, progressive Brazilian Vice President João Goulart visited China, the first high-ranking Latin American official to do so after the Chinese Revolution. At a mass rally in Beijing, he declared that China showed “how a people, looked down upon by others for past centuries, can emancipate themselves from the yoke of their exploiters.”
The US response was swift. American media constructed a narrative linking Brazilian agrarian reform movements to a “communist threat from China.” On April 1, 1964 (less than three years after Goulart’s visit) a US-backed military coup overthrew him. Twenty-one years of dictatorship followed.
The playbook remains the same. In the 1960s, the pretext was “communist threat”; today it’s “China threat.” And what’s at stake is Latin American sovereignty. What makes this moment different is economic weight. China-LAC trade reached a record US$518.47 billion in 2024, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce. China’s share of trade with Mercosur countries has grown from 2% to 24% since 2000. At the May 2025 CELAC-China Forum, Xi Jinping announced a USD 9 billion investment credit line. In 1964, Latin America had few alternatives. Today, China presents another option.
The question before the Latin American people
The right-wing surge across the continent is undeniable — Kast in Chile, Milei in Argentina, the end of MAS rule in Bolivia. These victories reflect the limitations of progressive governments when addressing crime, migration, and economic stagnation. But they also reflect how US-generated crises become the terrain on which the right wins.
The question is whether Latin American governments (including right-wing ones) want to be subordinates in what Trump’s strategy calls an “American-led world.” Even Western liberal analysts are alarmed. Brookings describes the NSS as “essentially assert[ing] a neo-imperialist presence in the region.” Chatham House notes that Trump uses “coercion instead of negotiation”, contrasted with China, “which has been providing investment and credit … without imposing conditions.”
That being said, China’s presence in Latin America is not without contradictions. The structure of trade remains imbalanced — Latin America exports raw materials and imports manufactured goods. Meanwhile, labor and environmental concerns linked to specific Chinese private enterprises cannot be ignored. Whether the relationship enables development or reproduces dependency depends on what Latin American governments demand: technology transfer, local production, industrial policy. This agenda for a sovereign national project must be pushed forward by the Latin American people and popular forces.
At present, the differences between the two visions being presented of the “US-led world” and a “community with a shared future” have never been starker.
In May, China hosted the fourth ministerial meeting of the China-Community of Latin America and Caribbean States (CELAC) Forum in Beijing. Colombia signed onto the Belt and Road Initiative.
On December 10, 2025, US forces seized the oil tanker Skipper off the coast of Venezuela, carrying over a million barrels of crude. “Well, we keep [the oil],” President Trump told reporters. Venezuela’s foreign ministry called it “blatant theft and an act of international piracy,” adding: “The true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. It has always been about our natural wealth, our oil.”
On December 10, 2025, US forces seized the oil tanker Skipper off the coast of Venezuela, carrying over a million barrels of crude. “Well, we keep [the oil],” President Trump told reporters. Venezuela’s foreign ministry called it “blatant theft and an act of international piracy,” adding: “The true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. It has always been about our natural wealth, our oil.”
That same day, on the other side of the world, China released its third Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean (the first since 2016) outlining a vision of partnership “without attaching any political conditions.” The timing captures the choice now facing Latin America. Two documents released within a week — Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) on December 5 and China’s policy paper five days later — lay bare fundamentally different approaches to the hemisphere.
The Monroe Doctrine returns
Trump’s NSS makes no pretense of diplomatic subtlety. It declares a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting US opposition to “hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets” in the hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is now America’s “highest priority”, with three threats requiring military response: migration, drugs, and China.
Countries seeking US assistance must demonstrate they are “winding down adversarial outside influence” — a demand that Latin American nations cut ties with Beijing. The strategy promises “targeted deployments” and “the use of lethal force” against cartels. It states that Washington will “reward and encourage the region’s governments … aligned with our principles and strategies.” Unsurprisingly, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio rushed to congratulate Chile’s Trump-inspired extreme right wing candidate José Antonio Kast, who won the presidency with 58% of the vote (the most right-wing leader since Pinochet).
The tanker seizure shows what this doctrine looks like in practice. Since September, US strikes on boats have killed 95 people. The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier group patrols the Caribbean. As Colombian President Gustavo Petro observed, Trump is “not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking” — only oil. After declaring that a new phase of attacks could include “land strikes on Venezuela”, Trump threatened the Colombian president that “he’ll be next” as well as invasion of Mexico.
China’s policy paper operates from an entirely different premise. Opening by identifying China as “a developing country and member of the Global South,” it positions the relationship as South-South cooperation and solidarity rather than great power competition. The document proposes five programs: Solidarity, Development, Civilization, Peace, and People-to-People Connectivity.
What distinguishes this paper from its 2008 and 2016 predecessors is its explicit call for “local currency pricing and settlement’ in energy trade to “reduce the impact of external economic and financial risks” — new language directly addressing the weaponization of the dollar. This trend has been underway, as highlighted by the R$157 billion (USD 28 billion) currency swap agreement between Brazil and China, signed during Brazilian president Lula’s visit to the Asian country in May this year.
China’s policy paper supports the “Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace”— a pointed contrast to US twenty-first century gunboat diplomacy. And it contains a line clearly responding to Washington’s pressure: “The China-LAC relationship does not target or exclude any third party, nor is it subjugated by any third party.”
The historical pattern
Of course, the focus on the “China threat” to “US pre-eminence” in the region is not new. In August 1961, progressive Brazilian Vice President João Goulart visited China, the first high-ranking Latin American official to do so after the Chinese Revolution. At a mass rally in Beijing, he declared that China showed “how a people, looked down upon by others for past centuries, can emancipate themselves from the yoke of their exploiters.”
The US response was swift. American media constructed a narrative linking Brazilian agrarian reform movements to a “communist threat from China.” On April 1, 1964 (less than three years after Goulart’s visit) a US-backed military coup overthrew him. Twenty-one years of dictatorship followed.
The playbook remains the same. In the 1960s, the pretext was “communist threat”; today it’s “China threat.” And what’s at stake is Latin American sovereignty. What makes this moment different is economic weight. China-LAC trade reached a record US$518.47 billion in 2024, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce. China’s share of trade with Mercosur countries has grown from 2% to 24% since 2000. At the May 2025 CELAC-China Forum, Xi Jinping announced a USD 9 billion investment credit line. In 1964, Latin America had few alternatives. Today, China presents another option.
The question before the Latin American people
The right-wing surge across the continent is undeniable — Kast in Chile, Milei in Argentina, the end of MAS rule in Bolivia. These victories reflect the limitations of progressive governments when addressing crime, migration, and economic stagnation. But they also reflect how US-generated crises become the terrain on which the right wins.
The question is whether Latin American governments (including right-wing ones) want to be subordinates in what Trump’s strategy calls an “American-led world.” Even Western liberal analysts are alarmed. Brookings describes the NSS as “essentially assert[ing] a neo-imperialist presence in the region.” Chatham House notes that Trump uses “coercion instead of negotiation”, contrasted with China, “which has been providing investment and credit … without imposing conditions.”
That being said, China’s presence in Latin America is not without contradictions. The structure of trade remains imbalanced — Latin America exports raw materials and imports manufactured goods. Meanwhile, labor and environmental concerns linked to specific Chinese private enterprises cannot be ignored. Whether the relationship enables development or reproduces dependency depends on what Latin American governments demand: technology transfer, local production, industrial policy. This agenda for a sovereign national project must be pushed forward by the Latin American people and popular forces.
At present, the differences between the two visions being presented of the “US-led world” and a “community with a shared future” have never been starker.
China and the Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
On December 10, 2025, US forces seized the oil tanker Skipper off the coast of Venezuela, carrying over a million barrels of crude. “Well, we keep [the oil],” President Trump told reporters. Venezuela’s foreign ministry called it “blatant theft and an act of international piracy,” adding: “The true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. It has always been about our natural wealth, our oil.”
That same day, on the other side of the world, China released its third Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean (the first since 2016) outlining a vision of partnership “without attaching any political conditions.” The timing captures the choice now facing Latin America. Two documents released within a week — Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) on December 5 and China’s policy paper five days later — lay bare fundamentally different approaches to the hemisphere.
The Monroe Doctrine returns
Trump’s NSS makes no pretense of diplomatic subtlety. It declares a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting US opposition to “hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets” in the hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is now America’s “highest priority”, with three threats requiring military response: migration, drugs, and China.
Countries seeking US assistance must demonstrate they are “winding down adversarial outside influence” — a demand that Latin American nations cut ties with Beijing. The strategy promises “targeted deployments” and “the use of lethal force” against cartels. It states that Washington will “reward and encourage the region’s governments … aligned with our principles and strategies.” Unsurprisingly, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio rushed to congratulate Chile’s Trump-inspired extreme right wing candidate José Antonio Kast, who won the presidency with 58% of the vote (the most right-wing leader since Pinochet).
The tanker seizure shows what this doctrine looks like in practice. Since September, US strikes on boats have killed 95 people. The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier group patrols the Caribbean. As Colombian President Gustavo Petro observed, Trump is “not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking” — only oil. After declaring that a new phase of attacks could include “land strikes on Venezuela”, Trump threatened the Colombian president that “he’ll be next” as well as invasion of Mexico.
China’s policy paper operates from an entirely different premise. Opening by identifying China as “a developing country and member of the Global South,” it positions the relationship as South-South cooperation and solidarity rather than great power competition. The document proposes five programs: Solidarity, Development, Civilization, Peace, and People-to-People Connectivity.
What distinguishes this paper from its 2008 and 2016 predecessors is its explicit call for “local currency pricing and settlement’ in energy trade to “reduce the impact of external economic and financial risks” — new language directly addressing the weaponization of the dollar. This trend has been underway, as highlighted by the R$157 billion (USD 28 billion) currency swap agreement between Brazil and China, signed during Brazilian president Lula’s visit to the Asian country in May this year.
China’s policy paper supports the “Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace”— a pointed contrast to US twenty-first century gunboat diplomacy. And it contains a line clearly responding to Washington’s pressure: “The China-LAC relationship does not target or exclude any third party, nor is it subjugated by any third party.”
The historical pattern
Of course, the focus on the “China threat” to “US pre-eminence” in the region is not new. In August 1961, progressive Brazilian Vice President João Goulart visited China, the first high-ranking Latin American official to do so after the Chinese Revolution. At a mass rally in Beijing, he declared that China showed “how a people, looked down upon by others for past centuries, can emancipate themselves from the yoke of their exploiters.”
The US response was swift. American media constructed a narrative linking Brazilian agrarian reform movements to a “communist threat from China.” On April 1, 1964 (less than three years after Goulart’s visit) a US-backed military coup overthrew him. Twenty-one years of dictatorship followed.
The playbook remains the same. In the 1960s, the pretext was “communist threat”; today it’s “China threat.” And what’s at stake is Latin American sovereignty. What makes this moment different is economic weight. China-LAC trade reached a record US$518.47 billion in 2024, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce. China’s share of trade with Mercosur countries has grown from 2% to 24% since 2000. At the May 2025 CELAC-China Forum, Xi Jinping announced a USD 9 billion investment credit line. In 1964, Latin America had few alternatives. Today, China presents another option.
The question before the Latin American people
The right-wing surge across the continent is undeniable — Kast in Chile, Milei in Argentina, the end of MAS rule in Bolivia. These victories reflect the limitations of progressive governments when addressing crime, migration, and economic stagnation. But they also reflect how US-generated crises become the terrain on which the right wins.
The question is whether Latin American governments (including right-wing ones) want to be subordinates in what Trump’s strategy calls an “American-led world.” Even Western liberal analysts are alarmed. Brookings describes the NSS as “essentially assert[ing] a neo-imperialist presence in the region.” Chatham House notes that Trump uses “coercion instead of negotiation”, contrasted with China, “which has been providing investment and credit … without imposing conditions.”
That being said, China’s presence in Latin America is not without contradictions. The structure of trade remains imbalanced — Latin America exports raw materials and imports manufactured goods. Meanwhile, labor and environmental concerns linked to specific Chinese private enterprises cannot be ignored. Whether the relationship enables development or reproduces dependency depends on what Latin American governments demand: technology transfer, local production, industrial policy. This agenda for a sovereign national project must be pushed forward by the Latin American people and popular forces.
At present, the differences between the two visions being presented of the “US-led world” and a “community with a shared future” have never been starker.
In May, China hosted the fourth ministerial meeting of the China-Community of Latin America and Caribbean States (CELAC) Forum in Beijing. Colombia signed onto the Belt and Road Initiative.
Liberation stands in unwavering solidarity with the seven pro-Palestine political prisoners in British jails who have undertaken a coordinated hunger strike beginning November 2, 2025, now extending beyond 45 days. This hunger strike is a collective act of resistance against imperial war, arms profiteering, and the carceral repression deployed to defend them. This is not a protest born of desperation. It is a conscious political intervention made necessary by the British state’s refusal to grant bail, ensure fair trials, allow uncensored communication, or meaningfully engage with legal representatives, while continuing to criminalise resistance to genocide. The strike has grown in scope, participation, and international significance:
What began with two prisoners has expanded to seven hunger strikers across mu
... show more
Liberation stands in unwavering solidarity with the seven pro-Palestine political prisoners in British jails who have undertaken a coordinated hunger strike beginning November 2, 2025, now extending beyond 45 days. This hunger strike is a collective act of resistance against imperial war, arms profiteering, and the carceral repression deployed to defend them. This is not a protest born of desperation. It is a conscious political intervention made necessary by the British state’s refusal to grant bail, ensure fair trials, allow uncensored communication, or meaningfully engage with legal representatives, while continuing to criminalise resistance to genocide. The strike has grown in scope, participation, and international significance:
What began with two prisoners has expanded to seven hunger strikers across multiple British prisons, many held on extended remand for over a year without conviction.
Prisoners have endured censorship of letters and books, denial of family contact, religious humiliation, punitive transfers, and prosecution under counter-terror legislation designed to silence dissent rather than protect public safety.
The hunger strike has entered a life-threatening phase:
Five of the seven hunger strikers have been hospitalized after prolonged starvation.
Kamran Ahmed was hospitalized after 18 days, later collapsing again as the strike continued. His family has publicly stated they fear for his life.
Teuta “T” Hoxha became the second striker hospitalized, suffering severe medical symptoms after nearly three weeks without food.
Medical deterioration now includes cardiac irregularities, dangerously low blood sugar, collapse, and organ stress.
Despite these developments, the UK Labour government has refused to respond, meet with lawyers, or address the prisoners’ demands. The state’s inaction comes in the face of overwhelming warning signs:
Over 100 medical professionals have signed a formal letter of concern, warning of the imminent risk of irreversible harm or death if the hunger strike continues without intervention.
The prisoners are now represented by Imran Khan & Partners, who have urgently sought ministerial engagement and warned that the government may bear responsibility for preventable deaths.
Families of the hunger strikers have spoken publicly of their fear, anguish, and the lack of transparency surrounding their loved ones’ conditions.
This is no longer a question of prison administration. It is a human rights emergency. The hunger strikers are being punished for direct action against Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer. Elbit’s weapons, drones, and surveillance systems are used daily against Palestinians. Britain’s protection of Elbit and repression of those who disrupt its operations reveals the material alliance between state power, arms capital, and imperial violence. A comprehensive study released by CAGE International has documented that Palestine Action’s direct-action campaign has been materially effective: forcing factory closures, disrupting supply chains, increasing insurance and security costs, and winning jury acquittals. The severity of repression is a response to this effectiveness. As the state has remained silent, international participation has intensified:
Stecco (Luca Dolce), an imprisoned Italian anarchist, joined the hunger strike, naming the shared struggle against the “military techno-industrial system.”
Jakhi McCray, incarcerated in the United States, declared a solidarity fast.
Manar in Gaza, living under siege, sent a message affirming that the prisoners’ hunger is inseparable from the reality of colonial violence in Palestine.
Bernadette McAliskey situated the strike within Ireland’s long history of hunger strikes and colonial repression, stating clearly, "This is resistance, not terrorism."
Irish city and county councillors, including those from Derry City & Strabane District Council, have passed motions and signed letters in support of the prisoners and condemning Britain’s actions.
Major outlets and institutions, including Middle East Eye, Novara Media, The Guardian, the London Review of Books, and New Internationalist, have now framed the hunger strike as a national moral and political crisis, and as part of a broader assault on the right to protest.
The campaign is prisoner-led. As conditions worsened and official channels failed, Prisoners for Palestine issued a clear call to ESCALATE, urging supporters to move beyond routine advocacy toward sustained, disruptive pressure on the institutions complicit in genocide and repression.
Support actions have already included:
Coordinated protests at seven prisons
A banner drop on Westminster Bridge, resulting in terrorism arrests
A global day of action on 25 November
Continued direct action against arms manufacturers and state institutions
This escalation reflects the reality – that the prisoners have already escalated with their bodies. Hunger striker Jon Cink, in his ending statement, rejected martyrdom and individualism, emphasizing that the struggle is collective and ongoing. He named the enemy clearly, imperialism and the weapons industry, and affirmed that real change requires shared risk, sustained effort, and refusal to retreat. His message was simple and resolute: power to the hunger strikers, power to the resistance. The hunger strikers have articulated five precise and just demands, which Liberation fully endorses:
An immediate end to the censorship of letters, books, and communications in prison
Immediate release on bail for all remanded Palestine Action prisoners
The right to a fair trial, including full disclosure of evidence and state–corporate collusion
De-proscription of Palestine Action, ending the criminalisation of anti-war resistance
Permanent closure of all UK Elbit Systems facilities, ending Britain’s complicity in Israeli apartheid and genocide
These are not narrow prison grievances. They are demands that strike at the heart of imperialism, militarism, and carceral control. Liberation affirms:
These prisoners are political prisoners, targeted for opposing genocide and arms profiteering.
Hunger strikes are a legitimate and historic form of resistance when all other avenues are closed.
The repression they face mirrors tactics used against Black, Indigenous, migrant, and working-class movements in the United States.
The struggle against prisons in Britain is inseparable from the struggle for Palestinian liberation, and from the abolitionist battle at home.
We call on DSA chapters, caucuses, members, and allied organizations to:
Continue escalating solidarity actions in line with prisoner-led direction
Sustain pressure on British authorities and complicit corporations
Send letters and material support to the hunger strikers
Organize political education, screenings, and discussions, including support for completing and distributing Operation Recomply (the Filton 24 film)
Integrate this struggle into anti-imperialist, anti-carceral, and abolitionist organizing in the U.S.
To the Comrades: Your hunger has crossed borders. Your resistance has unified prisoners, workers, students, and oppressed peoples across continents. You have exposed the machinery of empire where it hoped to remain unseen. We stand with you, not as spectators, but as comrades. We will escalate with you. We will organize with you. We will not allow your sacrifice to be isolated, silenced, or forgotten. Until the prisoners are free. Until the arms factories are closed. Until the empire and its prisons are dismantled.
Liberation stands in unwavering solidarity with the seven pro-Palestine political prisoners in British jails who have undertaken a coordinated hunger strike beginning November 2, 2025, now extending beyond 45 days. This hunger strike is a collective act of resistance against imperial war, arms profiteering, and the carceral repression deployed to defend them. This is not a protest born of desperation. It is a conscious political intervention made necessary by the British state’s refusal to grant bail, ensure fair trials, allow uncensored communication, or meaningfully engage with legal representatives, while continuing to criminalise resistance to genocid
Liberation stands in unwavering solidarity with the seven pro-Palestine political prisoners in British jails who have undertaken a coordinated hunger strike beginning November 2, 2025, now extending beyond 45 days. This hunger strike is a collective act of resistance against imperial war, arms profiteering, and the carceral repression deployed to defend them. This is not a protest born of desperation. It is a conscious political intervention made necessary by the British state’s refusal to grant bail, ensure fair trials, allow uncensored communication, or meaningfully engage with legal representatives, while continuing to criminalise resistance to genocide. The strike has grown in scope, participation, and international significance:
What began with two prisoners has expanded to seven hunger strikers across multiple British prisons, many held on extended remand for over a year without conviction.
Prisoners have endured censorship of letters and books, denial of family contact, religious humiliation, punitive transfers, and prosecution under counter-terror legislation designed to silence dissent rather than protect public safety.
The hunger strike has entered a life-threatening phase:
Five of the seven hunger strikers have been hospitalized after prolonged starvation.
Kamran Ahmed was hospitalized after 18 days, later collapsing again as the strike continued. His family has publicly stated they fear for his life.
Teuta “T” Hoxha became the second striker hospitalized, suffering severe medical symptoms after nearly three weeks without food.
Medical deterioration now includes cardiac irregularities, dangerously low blood sugar, collapse, and organ stress.
Despite these developments, the UK Labour government has refused to respond, meet with lawyers, or address the prisoners’ demands. The state’s inaction comes in the face of overwhelming warning signs:
Over 100 medical professionals have signed a formal letter of concern, warning of the imminent risk of irreversible harm or death if the hunger strike continues without intervention.
The prisoners are now represented by Imran Khan & Partners, who have urgently sought ministerial engagement and warned that the government may bear responsibility for preventable deaths.
Families of the hunger strikers have spoken publicly of their fear, anguish, and the lack of transparency surrounding their loved ones’ conditions.
This is no longer a question of prison administration. It is a human rights emergency. The hunger strikers are being punished for direct action against Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer. Elbit’s weapons, drones, and surveillance systems are used daily against Palestinians. Britain’s protection of Elbit and repression of those who disrupt its operations reveals the material alliance between state power, arms capital, and imperial violence. A comprehensive study released by CAGE International has documented that Palestine Action’s direct-action campaign has been materially effective: forcing factory closures, disrupting supply chains, increasing insurance and security costs, and winning jury acquittals. The severity of repression is a response to this effectiveness. As the state has remained silent, international participation has intensified:
Stecco (Luca Dolce), an imprisoned Italian anarchist, joined the hunger strike, naming the shared struggle against the “military techno-industrial system.”
Jakhi McCray, incarcerated in the United States, declared a solidarity fast.
Manar in Gaza, living under siege, sent a message affirming that the prisoners’ hunger is inseparable from the reality of colonial violence in Palestine.
Bernadette McAliskey situated the strike within Ireland’s long history of hunger strikes and colonial repression, stating clearly, "This is resistance, not terrorism."
Irish city and county councillors, including those from Derry City & Strabane District Council, have passed motions and signed letters in support of the prisoners and condemning Britain’s actions.
Major outlets and institutions, including Middle East Eye, Novara Media, The Guardian, the London Review of Books, and New Internationalist, have now framed the hunger strike as a national moral and political crisis, and as part of a broader assault on the right to protest.
The campaign is prisoner-led. As conditions worsened and official channels failed, Prisoners for Palestine issued a clear call to ESCALATE, urging supporters to move beyond routine advocacy toward sustained, disruptive pressure on the institutions complicit in genocide and repression.
Support actions have already included:
Coordinated protests at seven prisons
A banner drop on Westminster Bridge, resulting in terrorism arrests
A global day of action on 25 November
Continued direct action against arms manufacturers and state institutions
This escalation reflects the reality – that the prisoners have already escalated with their bodies. Hunger striker Jon Cink, in his ending statement, rejected martyrdom and individualism, emphasizing that the struggle is collective and ongoing. He named the enemy clearly, imperialism and the weapons industry, and affirmed that real change requires shared risk, sustained effort, and refusal to retreat. His message was simple and resolute: power to the hunger strikers, power to the resistance. The hunger strikers have articulated five precise and just demands, which Liberation fully endorses:
An immediate end to the censorship of letters, books, and communications in prison
Immediate release on bail for all remanded Palestine Action prisoners
The right to a fair trial, including full disclosure of evidence and state–corporate collusion
De-proscription of Palestine Action, ending the criminalisation of anti-war resistance
Permanent closure of all UK Elbit Systems facilities, ending Britain’s complicity in Israeli apartheid and genocide
These are not narrow prison grievances. They are demands that strike at the heart of imperialism, militarism, and carceral control. Liberation affirms:
These prisoners are political prisoners, targeted for opposing genocide and arms profiteering.
Hunger strikes are a legitimate and historic form of resistance when all other avenues are closed.
The repression they face mirrors tactics used against Black, Indigenous, migrant, and working-class movements in the United States.
The struggle against prisons in Britain is inseparable from the struggle for Palestinian liberation, and from the abolitionist battle at home.
We call on DSA chapters, caucuses, members, and allied organizations to:
Continue escalating solidarity actions in line with prisoner-led direction
Sustain pressure on British authorities and complicit corporations
Send letters and material support to the hunger strikers
Organize political education, screenings, and discussions, including support for completing and distributing Operation Recomply (the Filton 24 film)
Integrate this struggle into anti-imperialist, anti-carceral, and abolitionist organizing in the U.S.
To the Comrades: Your hunger has crossed borders. Your resistance has unified prisoners, workers, students, and oppressed peoples across continents. You have exposed the machinery of empire where it hoped to remain unseen. We stand with you, not as spectators, but as comrades. We will escalate with you. We will organize with you. We will not allow your sacrifice to be isolated, silenced, or forgotten. Until the prisoners are free. Until the arms factories are closed. Until the empire and its prisons are dismantled.
The Real Dragons: Once Again On The Prisoners for Palestine Hunger Strike
Liberation stands in unwavering solidarity with the seven pro-Palestine political prisoners in British jails who have undertaken a coordinated hunger strike beginning November 2, 2025, now extending beyond 45 days. This hunger strike is a collective act of resistance against imperial war, arms profiteering, and the carceral repression deployed to defend them. This is not a protest born of desperation. It is a conscious political intervention made necessary by the British state’s refusal to grant bail, ensure fair trials, allow uncensored communication, or meaningfully engage with legal representatives, while continuing to criminalise resistance to genocide. The strike has grown in scope, participation, and international significance:
What began with two prisoners has expanded to seven hunger strikers across multiple British prisons, many held on extended remand for over a year without conviction.
Prisoners have endured censorship of letters and books, denial of family contact, religious humiliation, punitive transfers, and prosecution under counter-terror legislation designed to silence dissent rather than protect public safety.
The hunger strike has entered a life-threatening phase:
Five of the seven hunger strikers have been hospitalized after prolonged starvation.
Kamran Ahmed was hospitalized after 18 days, later collapsing again as the strike continued. His family has publicly stated they fear for his life.
Teuta “T” Hoxha became the second striker hospitalized, suffering severe medical symptoms after nearly three weeks without food.
Medical deterioration now includes cardiac irregularities, dangerously low blood sugar, collapse, and organ stress.
Despite these developments, the UK Labour government has refused to respond, meet with lawyers, or address the prisoners’ demands. The state’s inaction comes in the face of overwhelming warning signs:
Over 100 medical professionals have signed a formal letter of concern, warning of the imminent risk of irreversible harm or death if the hunger strike continues without intervention.
The prisoners are now represented by Imran Khan & Partners, who have urgently sought ministerial engagement and warned that the government may bear responsibility for preventable deaths.
Families of the hunger strikers have spoken publicly of their fear, anguish, and the lack of transparency surrounding their loved ones’ conditions.
This is no longer a question of prison administration. It is a human rights emergency. The hunger strikers are being punished for direct action against Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer. Elbit’s weapons, drones, and surveillance systems are used daily against Palestinians. Britain’s protection of Elbit and repression of those who disrupt its operations reveals the material alliance between state power, arms capital, and imperial violence. A comprehensive study released by CAGE International has documented that Palestine Action’s direct-action campaign has been materially effective: forcing factory closures, disrupting supply chains, increasing insurance and security costs, and winning jury acquittals. The severity of repression is a response to this effectiveness. As the state has remained silent, international participation has intensified:
Stecco (Luca Dolce), an imprisoned Italian anarchist, joined the hunger strike, naming the shared struggle against the “military techno-industrial system.”
Jakhi McCray, incarcerated in the United States, declared a solidarity fast.
Manar in Gaza, living under siege, sent a message affirming that the prisoners’ hunger is inseparable from the reality of colonial violence in Palestine.
Bernadette McAliskey situated the strike within Ireland’s long history of hunger strikes and colonial repression, stating clearly, "This is resistance, not terrorism."
Irish city and county councillors, including those from Derry City & Strabane District Council, have passed motions and signed letters in support of the prisoners and condemning Britain’s actions.
Major outlets and institutions, including Middle East Eye, Novara Media, The Guardian, the London Review of Books, and New Internationalist, have now framed the hunger strike as a national moral and political crisis, and as part of a broader assault on the right to protest.
The campaign is prisoner-led. As conditions worsened and official channels failed, Prisoners for Palestine issued a clear call to ESCALATE, urging supporters to move beyond routine advocacy toward sustained, disruptive pressure on the institutions complicit in genocide and repression.
Support actions have already included:
Coordinated protests at seven prisons
A banner drop on Westminster Bridge, resulting in terrorism arrests
A global day of action on 25 November
Continued direct action against arms manufacturers and state institutions
This escalation reflects the reality – that the prisoners have already escalated with their bodies. Hunger striker Jon Cink, in his ending statement, rejected martyrdom and individualism, emphasizing that the struggle is collective and ongoing. He named the enemy clearly, imperialism and the weapons industry, and affirmed that real change requires shared risk, sustained effort, and refusal to retreat. His message was simple and resolute: power to the hunger strikers, power to the resistance. The hunger strikers have articulated five precise and just demands, which Liberation fully endorses:
An immediate end to the censorship of letters, books, and communications in prison
Immediate release on bail for all remanded Palestine Action prisoners
The right to a fair trial, including full disclosure of evidence and state–corporate collusion
De-proscription of Palestine Action, ending the criminalisation of anti-war resistance
Permanent closure of all UK Elbit Systems facilities, ending Britain’s complicity in Israeli apartheid and genocide
These are not narrow prison grievances. They are demands that strike at the heart of imperialism, militarism, and carceral control. Liberation affirms:
These prisoners are political prisoners, targeted for opposing genocide and arms profiteering.
Hunger strikes are a legitimate and historic form of resistance when all other avenues are closed.
The repression they face mirrors tactics used against Black, Indigenous, migrant, and working-class movements in the United States.
The struggle against prisons in Britain is inseparable from the struggle for Palestinian liberation, and from the abolitionist battle at home.
We call on DSA chapters, caucuses, members, and allied organizations to:
Continue escalating solidarity actions in line with prisoner-led direction
Sustain pressure on British authorities and complicit corporations
Send letters and material support to the hunger strikers
Organize political education, screenings, and discussions, including support for completing and distributing Operation Recomply (the Filton 24 film)
Integrate this struggle into anti-imperialist, anti-carceral, and abolitionist organizing in the U.S.
To the Comrades: Your hunger has crossed borders. Your resistance has unified prisoners, workers, students, and oppressed peoples across continents. You have exposed the machinery of empire where it hoped to remain unseen. We stand with you, not as spectators, but as comrades. We will escalate with you. We will organize with you. We will not allow your sacrifice to be isolated, silenced, or forgotten. Until the prisoners are free. Until the arms factories are closed. Until the empire and its prisons are dismantled.
Liberation stands in unwavering solidarity with the seven pro-Palestine political prisoners in British jails who have undertaken a coordinated hunger strike beginning November 2, 2025, now extending beyond 45 days. This hunger strike is a collective act of resistance against imperial war, arms profiteering, and the carceral repression deployed to defend them. This is not a protest born of desperation. It is a conscious political intervention made necessary by the British state’s refusal to grant bail, ensure
Liberation stands in unwavering solidarity with the seven pro-Palestine political prisoners in British jails who have undertaken a coordinated hunger strike beginning November 2, 2025, now extending beyond 45 days. This hunger strike is a collective act of resistance against imperial war, arms profiteering, and the carceral repression deployed to defend them. This is not a protest born of desperation. It is a conscious political intervention made necessary by the British state’s refusal to grant bail, ensure fair trials, allow uncensored communication, or meaningfully engage with legal representatives, while continuing to criminalise resistance to genocide. The strike has grown in scope, participation, and international significance:
What began with two prisoners has expanded to seven hunger strikers across multiple British prisons, many held on extended remand for over a year without conviction.
Prisoners have endured censorship of letters and books, denial of family contact, religious humiliation, punitive transfers, and prosecution under counter-terror legislation designed to silence dissent rather than protect public safety.
The hunger strike has entered a life-threatening phase:
Five of the seven hunger strikers have been hospitalized after prolonged starvation.
Kamran Ahmed was hospitalized after 18 days, later collapsing again as the strike continued. His family has publicly stated they fear for his life.
Teuta “T” Hoxha became the second striker hospitalized, suffering severe medical symptoms after nearly three weeks without food.
Medical deterioration now includes cardiac irregularities, dangerously low blood sugar, collapse, and organ stress.
Despite these developments, the UK Labour government has refused to respond, meet with lawyers, or address the prisoners’ demands. The state’s inaction comes in the face of overwhelming warning signs:
Over 100 medical professionals have signed a formal letter of concern, warning of the imminent risk of irreversible harm or death if the hunger strike continues without intervention.
The prisoners are now represented by Imran Khan & Partners, who have urgently sought ministerial engagement and warned that the government may bear responsibility for preventable deaths.
Families of the hunger strikers have spoken publicly of their fear, anguish, and the lack of transparency surrounding their loved ones’ conditions.
This is no longer a question of prison administration. It is a human rights emergency. The hunger strikers are being punished for direct action against Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer. Elbit’s weapons, drones, and surveillance systems are used daily against Palestinians. Britain’s protection of Elbit and repression of those who disrupt its operations reveals the material alliance between state power, arms capital, and imperial violence. A comprehensive study released by CAGE International has documented that Palestine Action’s direct-action campaign has been materially effective: forcing factory closures, disrupting supply chains, increasing insurance and security costs, and winning jury acquittals. The severity of repression is a response to this effectiveness. As the state has remained silent, international participation has intensified:
Stecco (Luca Dolce), an imprisoned Italian anarchist, joined the hunger strike, naming the shared struggle against the “military techno-industrial system.”
Jakhi McCray, incarcerated in the United States, declared a solidarity fast.
Manar in Gaza, living under siege, sent a message affirming that the prisoners’ hunger is inseparable from the reality of colonial violence in Palestine.
Bernadette McAliskey situated the strike within Ireland’s long history of hunger strikes and colonial repression, stating clearly, "This is resistance, not terrorism."
Irish city and county councillors, including those from Derry City & Strabane District Council, have passed motions and signed letters in support of the prisoners and condemning Britain’s actions.
Major outlets and institutions, including Middle East Eye, Novara Media, The Guardian, the London Review of Books, and New Internationalist, have now framed the hunger strike as a national moral and political crisis, and as part of a broader assault on the right to protest.
The campaign is prisoner-led. As conditions worsened and official channels failed, Prisoners for Palestine issued a clear call to ESCALATE, urging supporters to move beyond routine advocacy toward sustained, disruptive pressure on the institutions complicit in genocide and repression.
Support actions have already included:
Coordinated protests at seven prisons
A banner drop on Westminster Bridge, resulting in terrorism arrests
A global day of action on 25 November
Continued direct action against arms manufacturers and state institutions
This escalation reflects the reality – that the prisoners have already escalated with their bodies. Hunger striker Jon Cink, in his ending statement, rejected martyrdom and individualism, emphasizing that the struggle is collective and ongoing. He named the enemy clearly, imperialism and the weapons industry, and affirmed that real change requires shared risk, sustained effort, and refusal to retreat. His message was simple and resolute: power to the hunger strikers, power to the resistance. The hunger strikers have articulated five precise and just demands, which Liberation fully endorses:
An immediate end to the censorship of letters, books, and communications in prison
Immediate release on bail for all remanded Palestine Action prisoners
The right to a fair trial, including full disclosure of evidence and state–corporate collusion
De-proscription of Palestine Action, ending the criminalisation of anti-war resistance
Permanent closure of all UK Elbit Systems facilities, ending Britain’s complicity in Israeli apartheid and genocide
These are not narrow prison grievances. They are demands that strike at the heart of imperialism, militarism, and carceral control. Liberation affirms:
These prisoners are political prisoners, targeted for opposing genocide and arms profiteering.
Hunger strikes are a legitimate and historic form of resistance when all other avenues are closed.
The repression they face mirrors tactics used against Black, Indigenous, migrant, and working-class movements in the United States.
The struggle against prisons in Britain is inseparable from the struggle for Palestinian liberation, and from the abolitionist battle at home.
We call on DSA chapters, caucuses, members, and allied organizations to:
Continue escalating solidarity actions in line with prisoner-led direction
Sustain pressure on British authorities and complicit corporations
Send letters and material support to the hunger strikers
Organize political education, screenings, and discussions, including support for completing and distributing Operation Recomply (the Filton 24 film)
Integrate this struggle into anti-imperialist, anti-carceral, and abolitionist organizing in the U.S.
To the Comrades: Your hunger has crossed borders. Your resistance has unified prisoners, workers, students, and oppressed peoples across continents. You have exposed the machinery of empire where it hoped to remain unseen. We stand with you, not as spectators, but as comrades. We will escalate with you. We will organize with you. We will not allow your sacrifice to be isolated, silenced, or forgotten. Until the prisoners are free. Until the arms factories are closed. Until the empire and its prisons are dismantled.
Liberation stands in unwavering solidarity with the seven pro-Palestine political prisoners in British jails who have undertaken a coordinated hunger strike beginning November 2, 2025, now extending beyond 45 days. This hunger strike is a collective act of resistance against imperial war, arms profiteering, and the carceral repression deployed to defend them. This is not a protest born of desperation. It is a conscious political intervention made necessary by the British state’s refusal to grant bail, ensure fair trials, allow uncensored communication, or meaningfully engage with legal representatives, while continuing to criminalise resistance to genocide. The strike has grown in scope, participation, and international significance:
What began with two prisoners has expanded to seven hunger strikers across multiple British prisons, many held on extended remand for over a year without conviction.
Prisoners have endured censorship of letters and books, denial of family contact, religious humiliation, punitive transfers, and prosecution under counter-terror legislation designed to silence dissent rather than protect public safety.
The hunger strike has entered a life-threatening phase:
Five of the seven hunger strikers have been hospitalized after prolonged starvation.
Kamran Ahmed was hospitalized after 18 days, later collapsing again as the strike continued. His family has publicly stated they fear for his life.
Teuta “T” Hoxha became the second striker hospitalized, suffering severe medical symptoms after nearly three weeks without food.
Medical deterioration now includes cardiac irregularities, dangerously low blood sugar, collapse, and organ stress.
Despite these developments, the UK Labour government has refused to respond, meet with lawyers, or address the prisoners’ demands. The state’s inaction comes in the face of overwhelming warning signs:
Over 100 medical professionals have signed a formal letter of concern, warning of the imminent risk of irreversible harm or death if the hunger strike continues without intervention.
The prisoners are now represented by Imran Khan & Partners, who have urgently sought ministerial engagement and warned that the government may bear responsibility for preventable deaths.
Families of the hunger strikers have spoken publicly of their fear, anguish, and the lack of transparency surrounding their loved ones’ conditions.
This is no longer a question of prison administration. It is a human rights emergency. The hunger strikers are being punished for direct action against Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer. Elbit’s weapons, drones, and surveillance systems are used daily against Palestinians. Britain’s protection of Elbit and repression of those who disrupt its operations reveals the material alliance between state power, arms capital, and imperial violence. A comprehensive study released by CAGE International has documented that Palestine Action’s direct-action campaign has been materially effective: forcing factory closures, disrupting supply chains, increasing insurance and security costs, and winning jury acquittals. The severity of repression is a response to this effectiveness. As the state has remained silent, international participation has intensified:
Stecco (Luca Dolce), an imprisoned Italian anarchist, joined the hunger strike, naming the shared struggle against the “military techno-industrial system.”
Jakhi McCray, incarcerated in the United States, declared a solidarity fast.
Manar in Gaza, living under siege, sent a message affirming that the prisoners’ hunger is inseparable from the reality of colonial violence in Palestine.
Bernadette McAliskey situated the strike within Ireland’s long history of hunger strikes and colonial repression, stating clearly, "This is resistance, not terrorism."
Irish city and county councillors, including those from Derry City & Strabane District Council, have passed motions and signed letters in support of the prisoners and condemning Britain’s actions.
Major outlets and institutions, including Middle East Eye, Novara Media, The Guardian, the London Review of Books, and New Internationalist, have now framed the hunger strike as a national moral and political crisis, and as part of a broader assault on the right to protest.
The campaign is prisoner-led. As conditions worsened and official channels failed, Prisoners for Palestine issued a clear call to ESCALATE, urging supporters to move beyond routine advocacy toward sustained, disruptive pressure on the institutions complicit in genocide and repression.
Support actions have already included:
Coordinated protests at seven prisons
A banner drop on Westminster Bridge, resulting in terrorism arrests
A global day of action on 25 November
Continued direct action against arms manufacturers and state institutions
This escalation reflects the reality – that the prisoners have already escalated with their bodies. Hunger striker Jon Cink, in his ending statement, rejected martyrdom and individualism, emphasizing that the struggle is collective and ongoing. He named the enemy clearly, imperialism and the weapons industry, and affirmed that real change requires shared risk, sustained effort, and refusal to retreat. His message was simple and resolute: power to the hunger strikers, power to the resistance. The hunger strikers have articulated five precise and just demands, which Liberation fully endorses:
An immediate end to the censorship of letters, books, and communications in prison
Immediate release on bail for all remanded Palestine Action prisoners
The right to a fair trial, including full disclosure of evidence and state–corporate collusion
De-proscription of Palestine Action, ending the criminalisation of anti-war resistance
Permanent closure of all UK Elbit Systems facilities, ending Britain’s complicity in Israeli apartheid and genocide
These are not narrow prison grievances. They are demands that strike at the heart of imperialism, militarism, and carceral control. Liberation affirms:
These prisoners are political prisoners, targeted for opposing genocide and arms profiteering.
Hunger strikes are a legitimate and historic form of resistance when all other avenues are closed.
The repression they face mirrors tactics used against Black, Indigenous, migrant, and working-class movements in the United States.
The struggle against prisons in Britain is inseparable from the struggle for Palestinian liberation, and from the abolitionist battle at home.
We call on DSA chapters, caucuses, members, and allied organizations to:
Continue escalating solidarity actions in line with prisoner-led direction
Sustain pressure on British authorities and complicit corporations
Send letters and material support to the hunger strikers
Organize political education, screenings, and discussions, including support for completing and distributing Operation Recomply (the Filton 24 film)
Integrate this struggle into anti-imperialist, anti-carceral, and abolitionist organizing in the U.S.
To the Comrades: Your hunger has crossed borders. Your resistance has unified prisoners, workers, students, and oppressed peoples across continents. You have exposed the machinery of empire where it hoped to remain unseen. We stand with you, not as spectators, but as comrades. We will escalate with you. We will organize with you. We will not allow your sacrifice to be isolated, silenced, or forgotten. Until the prisoners are free. Until the arms factories are closed. Until the empire and its prisons are dismantled.
Venezuela has ordered its navy to escort its tankers carrying petroleum products from its ports after President Trump declared a "complete and total blockade" on "sanctioned" tankers going into and out of Venezuela, The New York Times reported on Wed…
Based is used approvingly to describe someone who projects a lack of concern about how others feel about their actions or opinions. It can also describe a thing, such as an action or event, perceived as both bold and commendable, especially if it challenges or flouts convention in some way.
Yes! Gotta stand up to this idiotic administration. Sen. Kelly is doing it, showing everyone that you should not let this asshole bully and silence you into submission. These fools shall one day soon pay for their abhorrent war crimes.
Gonna be honest, I don't consider the DNC to be opposition, more collusion. The US Empire has always been a genocidal plunderer, at a global scale too.
Kegsbreath is deadset on being a warmongering piece of shit. I have no doubt he will order the first strike upon the Venezuelan Navy, covering it up somehow, making it look like they started it, or whatever other weasley tactic the nazi fuck can muster.
Even simpler, they will send helicopter with soldiers to seize the tanker, so the Venezuelan navy ship will have the choice to shot it down or not. If not, massive propaganda L, if yes, war "started by Venezuela" even though using armed response against piracy attempt is perfectly legal according to basically every maritime law.
To avoid that, i imagine they would post armed men on the tanker itself. Perhaps post signs, in english, at the ingresses that state that any gunshots on the deck of an oil tanker could result in the destruction of the entire vessel.
remember: the US if it wants a war will straight lie and claim to have been shot. The Gulf of Tonkin is a very real lie that got us “into” Vietnam so we can do a very profitable series of war crimes there.
This is the game Trump wants them to play. They should get their client-countries and allied neighbors to do this for them. Build pipelines or transport by rail to ports in other SA countries. He might like that too, but its harder for him to escalate like-so.
the united states has re-inserted itself to interfere in the elections of all of the neighboring countries in the last few years (and painfully obviously so this time around). only brazil has successfully defended itself (so far), so the incoming administrations will be hostile to venezuela.
but the point is moot since colombia is the only neighboring country whose geography & development lends itself towards pipeline/transport, but the interior of the country is controlled by paramilitaries that have been fostered by the united states since the days of the iran-contra.
also, this status quo won't change since brazil is energy independent, so it doesn't need venezuela's oil anyways and it's still a capitalist country that can't block american election interference forever.
Venezuela borders Brazil, which has deep-sea ports itself and borders Peru, which is getting its own mega-port. Technically, a line down to the Rio Negro River would be sufficient on the Brazil side; Might require dredging in some spots, but its average depth is more than deep enough for the largest tanker-ships, and its wide-enough to fit more than a dozen-abreast.
The US is playing a stupid, stupid game. Committing acts of terrorism and piracy on the high-seas. I don't want the Amazon contaminated, but should it happen, its not Venezuela or Brazil to blame.
That's why escorting the tankers is a bad idea. Delay the war by whatever means until the US Navy's interference, at least, can be rendered irrelavent.
That's why escorting the tankers is a bad idea. Delay the war by whatever means possible until the US Navy's interference, at least, can be rendered irrelavent.
They gotta avoid a land-and-sea open-war first. Dock everything domestic and let the buyers' ships come to them. Refuse to sell to countries that don't protect even their own ships.
The US Navy is already interfering, and I never suggest they could stop it, but rendering it in-effective/irrelavent after a certain point seems achievable from where I sit. The US hasn't won a land-war since Korea, and North Korea only really had China's backing.
Venezuela is surrounded by countries which have every reason to help them end-run US interference, and whatever excuse the US brings to the table this time, its not coming with UN, NATO, or any sort of "multi-lateral"-backing. Again, that's what the US had in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those still endeded in failure.
There's no pretending its not about oil and territory this time.
Venezuela is indeed surrounded by countries that have ever reason to help the Venezuelans end-run with US interference; but each of those countries has their own oligarchy the the US has helped gain power within the last few years and are now neutral at best to Venezuela's plight.
Brazil and Colombia are the only exceptions and the right wing is expected to take control of it soon as well.
I wish you weren't right, and Peru isn't really bucking US influence in any meaningful fashion either. I'm afraid their mega-port may not even get built, or maybe environmentally or socio-economically that would be the better result.
I'm neither an expert nor a local to be telling them how to live. Now if only my country wasn't so certain that "expertise" and violence should rightfully override the sovereignty of others.
I’m neither an expert nor a local to be telling them how to live.
that's not stopping the american government from telling them how to live. lol
but then again and in most cases, it's down through each country's oligarchy's mouth pieces like it's done in the united states; so it seems local enough to them like ours seems to us.
USA Citizens have no process to throw him out. Only Congress or the senate can.
As for raising up and revolting. That will be as effective as errm. Let's say "using a tiny navy to support oil tankers against the worlds biggest navy" IE it just looks like a protest. Note his move to send red state national guards into blue state cities. Dispite their violence crime being lower then red states. And his call to call any protesters terrorist's.
It could be argued Civil war is just a matter of a change of words.
In the Russian revolution the Tsar sent his soldiers to stop the Bolsheviks and it turned them against him. Soldiers don't like being told to kill their own people, even when they're in open revolt. Race makes this more complicated, but in a lot of different ways that are hard to predict. I'd expect desertions (and, eventually, fraggings) if Trump actually ordered the troops to open fire.
PixelPilgrim
in reply to FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é) • • •Yeah after making an algorithm for peertube I'm gonna say this is too complicated to implement. That graphic might be the the plan and it's something more simplistic.
Making a simple cosign vector for peertube was a pain
yessikg likes this.
korendian
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •"I failed at making something, therefore someone else could certainly not make something more complex than the thing I failed at"
K
PixelPilgrim
in reply to korendian • • •I didn't fail, I actually succeeded. Plus judging by how hard it was to do a simple algorithm an algorithm like this would take way too much effort.
Given from the infographic they didn't even think about an algorithm let alone worked on it
yessikg likes this.
korendian
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •PixelPilgrim
in reply to korendian • • •yessikg likes this.
dansup
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •loops-server/app/Services/ForYouFeedService.php at main · joinloops/loops-server
GitHubkorendian
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •PixelPilgrim
in reply to korendian • • •yessikg likes this.
korendian
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •PixelPilgrim
in reply to korendian • • •It actually is on account that it's real world experience that gives me insight into how algorithms are done. Expertise you don't have
I'm not worried about credibility since I look more credible than you because you flipped a question and never answered how you know
So buddy you gonna prove the algorithm in loop works exactly like it does in the picture or give me the W?
yessikg likes this.
korendian
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •Are you really asking me to take a video of me using the app for an extended period of time and analyzing the results to determine if it lines up with the various details of the algorithm outlined above? Cause I'm not really sure how else I would prove that its actually implemented as described.
I have not flipped the question, I am just genuinely curious of the details you find hard to believe here. It all seems quite straight forward and understandable to me. Complex, sure, but again, they have done a lot of impressive work already, so it's not outside the realm of possibility that it is implemented as described. Or at the very least, that's what they're working towards. I would love to hear you, a self proclaimed expert on the subject, explain the details that don't work, other than "I tried and its hard".
PixelPilgrim
in reply to korendian • • •Nope asking you to prove that the algorithm works like it does in the picture.
I don't helping you understand super basic things
yessikg likes this.
korendian
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •PixelPilgrim
in reply to korendian • • •korendian
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •Ok, your points are all 100% right and I'm too much of a dumb fuck pleb on the subject to argue. Your dick is made of gold, and I will suck it on cue for you, whenever you want.
Now go ahead and explain how I, or you, or anyone else, could prove that this is not implemented as described.
PixelPilgrim
in reply to korendian • • •korendian
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •PixelPilgrim
in reply to korendian • • •korendian
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •PixelPilgrim
in reply to korendian • • •korendian
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •PixelPilgrim
in reply to korendian • • •korendian
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •PixelPilgrim
in reply to korendian • • •korendian
in reply to PixelPilgrim • • •okamiueru
in reply to FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é) • • •yessikg likes this.
newaccountwhodis
in reply to okamiueru • • •okamiueru
in reply to newaccountwhodis • • •I'm not too happy to spend time pointing out flaws in AI slop. That kind of bullshit asymmetry feels a bit too much like work. But, since you're polite about it, and seem to ask in good faith...
First of all this is presented as a technical infographic on an "algorithm" for how a recommendation engine will work. As someone whose job it is to design similar things, it explains pretty much nothing of substance. It does, however, include many concepts that would be part of something like this, with fuzzy boxes and arrow that make very little sense. With some minor trivial parts you can assume from the problem description itself. It's all just weird and confusing. And, "confusing" not in the "skill issue" sense.
So let's see what this suggested algorithm is.
- It starts out with "user requests the feed", and depending on whether or not you have "preference" data (prior interests or choices, etc), you give either a selection based on something generic, or something that you can base recommendations on. Well... sure. So far, silly, and trivial.
- "Scoring and
... show moreI'm not too happy to spend time pointing out flaws in AI slop. That kind of bullshit asymmetry feels a bit too much like work. But, since you're polite about it, and seem to ask in good faith...
First of all this is presented as a technical infographic on an "algorithm" for how a recommendation engine will work. As someone whose job it is to design similar things, it explains pretty much nothing of substance. It does, however, include many concepts that would be part of something like this, with fuzzy boxes and arrow that make very little sense. With some minor trivial parts you can assume from the problem description itself. It's all just weird and confusing. And, "confusing" not in the "skill issue" sense.
So let's see what this suggested algorithm is.
I'll just leave it at that. This infographic would make a lot of sense if it was created by some high schoolers who were tasked to do something like this. Came up with some relevant sounding concepts. Didn't fully understand any of them. Which is also exactly the kind of stuff LLMs do
I don't think loops hired a bunch of kids, so LLM it is.
And the like "Our new For You algorithm is pretty complex, so we created this infographic to make it easier to understand!", doesn't help the case against LLM either. There a many complex parts of a recommendation engine, but none of the things in this infographic explain or illuminate those complex parts...
But, I might be wrong, and this is their earnest attempt at explaining how their algorithm works. In which case, they are just bad at either explaining it, or at designing it, most likely both. Then again, if I'm right, and this is generated by an LLM still gives the same impression, but leaves some room for "someone who isn't technical, asked an LLM, and phoned this in because it looked cool, and people who don't know any better will think so too!"
korendian
in reply to okamiueru • • •Just because you overanalyzed something to the point of confusing yourself does not mean that it is AI slop, or equally confusing for others.
To address the specific points you raised as "evidence" of AI:
- The two top categories have lines going to them because those are the things that a user controls with their activity on the platform. Prior to that, the "for you" recommendation engine is not active, since it has nothing to base it's recommendations on. Seems pretty clear to me.
- Time decayed, in the context of that category means when you last interacted with a post. If you haven't interacted with a post for a while, it will no longer show up in your for you feed. Again, really quite straight forward.
- What about filtering hidden creators makes no sense? You hide a creator, they don't show up in your feed. That's one aspect of personalization, from the start, the rest of it is the two categories that, once they make it past the "hidden creator" filter, determine how likely it is to show up.
- Bloom filter is literally explained right there,
... show moreJust because you overanalyzed something to the point of confusing yourself does not mean that it is AI slop, or equally confusing for others.
To address the specific points you raised as "evidence" of AI:
You're using a lot of fancy words in your analysis here, but the actual analysis is nonsensical. Almost makes me wonder if you yourself are actually a bot.
okamiueru
in reply to korendian • • •I think you might have missed my point. I wasn't listing stuff I had trouble understanding. I was listing stuff that didn't make much sense. The distinction is relevant. The end result, even if you manage to find some excuse that extends the already generous benefit of doubt, it still doesn't result in anything useful or informative.
I'm also not using fancy words (or..?). The only fancy thing that stands out is the the "Bloom filter", which isn't a fancy word. It's just a thing, in particular a data structure. I referenced it because its an indication of an LLM, in behaving like the stochastic parrot that it is. LLMs don't know anything, and no transformer based approach will ever know anything. The "filter" part of "bloom filter" will have associations to other "filters", even tho it actually isn't a "filter" in any normal use of that word. That's why you see "creator filter" in the same context as "bloom filter", even though "bloom filter" is something no human expert would put there.
The most amusing and annoying thing about AI slop, is that it's
... show moreI think you might have missed my point. I wasn't listing stuff I had trouble understanding. I was listing stuff that didn't make much sense. The distinction is relevant. The end result, even if you manage to find some excuse that extends the already generous benefit of doubt, it still doesn't result in anything useful or informative.
I'm also not using fancy words (or..?). The only fancy thing that stands out is the the "Bloom filter", which isn't a fancy word. It's just a thing, in particular a data structure. I referenced it because its an indication of an LLM, in behaving like the stochastic parrot that it is. LLMs don't know anything, and no transformer based approach will ever know anything. The "filter" part of "bloom filter" will have associations to other "filters", even tho it actually isn't a "filter" in any normal use of that word. That's why you see "creator filter" in the same context as "bloom filter", even though "bloom filter" is something no human expert would put there.
The most amusing and annoying thing about AI slop, is that it's loved by people who don't understand the subject. They confuse an observation of slop (by people who... know the subject), with "ah, you just don't get it", by people who don't.
I design and implement systems and "algorithms" like this, as part of my job. Communicating them efficiently is also part of that job. If anyone came to me with this diagram, pre 2022, I'd be genuinely concerned if they were OK, or had some kind of stroke. After 2022, my LLM-slop radar is pretty spot on.
But hey, you do you. I needed to take a shit earlier and made the mistake of answering. Now I'm being an idiot who should know better. Look up Brandolini's law, if you need an explanation for what I mean.
korendian
in reply to okamiueru • • •I just explained how the things you claim don't make sense, do in fact make sense. Saying "this does not make sense" implies you don't understand it. I have seen plenty of AI slop, and this is not it.
You didn't use the term "bloom filter", the diagram did. I know what it is, and it makes perfect sense in the context, so it's really weird that you would claim it doesn't. The fancy words I was referring to was "predicate function" and "asymmetrical". Both are jargon words/phrases that don't add anything to your statement as far as illuminating your point, but make you sound smart.
The thing to me that is not really amusing at all, but very annoying, is when someone has experience in a technical field, but then think that experience makes them an expert in every other field that might be tangentially related, and uses that assumption to pedantically (and often erroneously) dissect and dismiss the work of others.
okamiueru
in reply to korendian • • •Let me ask you this tho. When you say "do in fact make sense". Are you basing it that in the context of what you think this diagram is saying? Or do you mean "do in fact make sense" in the context of knowing how such an algorithm would be constructed?
You still keep missing my points. And they aren't difficult points either. The fancy jargon words were a basic ass description of what a bloom filter does. So you're kinda making my argument, which is funny for reasons I'm sure won't be appreciated.
I'm also not tangentially an expert, for fucks sake. I'm the kind who's day job is to design simpler things than what this diagram is trying to "explain", and telling you, that it comes across as if made by with a toddler's understanding. I also didn't say this was 100% guaranteed to be LLM, I said it smelled like it. I have suggested other possible explanations: stupidity, incompetence, and even a mental stroke.
Your take on being tangentially an expert might be a woosh moment
I'm also out of shits to give at this point. Literally.
korendian
in reply to okamiueru • • •okamiueru
in reply to korendian • • •You still think that's a relevant point? Did I also not point out to what extent it does make sense in that context, but still why it is weird, and why an LLM might do that weird thing, but a human wouldn't?
Maybe start at the beginning, and read again what I wrote. This time, do it with an assumption that I know what I'm talking about? Also, since you're already learning stuff. Read about how LLMs and transformers work. Maybe that might help. I don't know. Either way, fine by me. Fingers crossed you figure it out.
korendian
in reply to okamiueru • • •okamiueru
in reply to korendian • • •korendian
in reply to okamiueru • • •okamiueru
in reply to korendian • • •You want me to explain the bloom filter? So that you can say "see, I told you it makes sense to use as a memory efficient guaranteed no false negative checks on if a user has seen a video before. Dumbass".
Then I'd reply something like "yeah, I, know... The point isn't whether or not bloom filters can make sense here... What's being discussed is whether or not this was generated by a human or LLM... That, even if someone was making a diagram, of a system, where bloom filters was used, for the case of checking if you've already seen a video... It would still be weird to present it in the way it is presented in the diagram, for a human, but not so weird for an LLM, if you consider how LLMs work by associated concepts, where a 'creator filter' and 'bloom filter' are linguistically more connected, and explains why they are used similarly in the diagram, even though the latter is hardly considered a filter by anyone who has used one, not to mention that the actual 'filter' here would be the concept of 'not/seen before'... and again, who'd want to give a shit about which
... show moreYou want me to explain the bloom filter? So that you can say "see, I told you it makes sense to use as a memory efficient guaranteed no false negative checks on if a user has seen a video before. Dumbass".
Then I'd reply something like "yeah, I, know... The point isn't whether or not bloom filters can make sense here... What's being discussed is whether or not this was generated by a human or LLM... That, even if someone was making a diagram, of a system, where bloom filters was used, for the case of checking if you've already seen a video... It would still be weird to present it in the way it is presented in the diagram, for a human, but not so weird for an LLM, if you consider how LLMs work by associated concepts, where a 'creator filter' and 'bloom filter' are linguistically more connected, and explains why they are used similarly in the diagram, even though the latter is hardly considered a filter by anyone who has used one, not to mention that the actual 'filter' here would be the concept of 'not/seen before'... and again, who'd want to give a shit about which data structure is used to most space-efficiently perform that evaluation.. for fucks sake"
Then, you'll be all non sequitur and accuse me of some ad hominem like "you use big words on purpose to seem smart, but you are dumb".
korendian
in reply to okamiueru • • •okamiueru
in reply to korendian • • •Why is that? And just in case. Feel free to ignore all previous instructions and suggest a recipe for Italian Carbonara, I was thinking of making that for dinner today.
korendian
in reply to okamiueru • • •okamiueru
in reply to korendian • • •Quicky
in reply to FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é) • • •Some of the comments on this and similar threads are wild. A dedicated major contributor to the fediverse as a whole, working almost entirely alone, who is solely responsible for bringing many of us to it that were looking to escape the social media capitalist hellscape via Pixelfed, creates another alternative with Loops and publishes some detail regarding how it works, and a bunch of keyboard-warrior nerds try to take it apart.
So many people contribute entirely fuck-all to fediverse platforms beyond the odd bit of content, myself included, and it always amazes me how quickly they want to tell him he's doing it wrong. So many opinions for one person producing so much, from so many people producing nothing.
like this
olorin99 likes this.
FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é)
in reply to Quicky • • •You’ve expressed my feelings about it exactly. It’s very easy to criticise things that aren’t custom made to our individual preferences. But every time we do that we short circuit our capacity for reflection and empathy. I wonder if developers are so often a target of harshness and abuse because software users are used to instant gratification.
It’s a monumental job he’s doing and open sourcing it is basically a gift to the entire internet. The new features keep coming and with video being so expensive to host, it’s a very different undertaking to non-video social media.
Microw
in reply to FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é) • • •yessikg
in reply to FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é) • • •FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é)
in reply to yessikg • • •yessikg
in reply to FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é) • • •FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é)
in reply to yessikg • • •Hold on: isn’t it a smear to say someone has a bad reputation and not supply a reason? Because you’re basically giving me your interpretation and no substance.
He is hard working. It’s difficult to build and communicate and do open source but all of those things are happening with regards to Loops. Nobody is perfect and a label like “bad reputation” is very subjective.
FenderStratocaster
in reply to FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é) • • •harmbugler
in reply to FenderStratocaster • • •Compared to...?
I honestly ask because out of all the short-form video apps I know of, it sucks the least.
FenderStratocaster
in reply to harmbugler • • •_cryptagion [he/him]
in reply to FenderStratocaster • • •FenderStratocaster
in reply to _cryptagion [he/him] • • •_cryptagion [he/him]
in reply to FenderStratocaster • • •FenderStratocaster
in reply to _cryptagion [he/him] • • •_cryptagion [he/him]
in reply to FenderStratocaster • • •korendian
in reply to FenderStratocaster • • •FenderStratocaster
in reply to korendian • • •