What part of the title is misleading? the HN title fixes simply removes some inaccurate language from the original article.
it absolutely does not, and to suggest so is absurd. In America, black people have been enslaved with all sorts of justifications about how they were of an "inferior race", how they were "naturally" more violent and "animalistic", etc and how their enslavement was actually good for them.
> The ACLU also found that more than 76 percent of incarcerated workers surveyed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics say that “they are required to work or face additional punishments such as solitary confinement, denial of opportunities to reduce their sentence, and loss of family visitation.”
It would definitely be nice to give them a decent wage, but I think this is an area where practicality matters as well- prisons cost money and man-hours. I don't know about the economics, but getting rid of for-profit prisons seems like a good idea.
The HN title is editorialized by injecting tendentious and controversial framing not present in the OP article let alone the OP title.
It's not even accurate, these practices seem far closer to "involuntary servitude" than "slavery." The term "slave," at least in the American context, implies being chattel, which none of these prisoners are.
For the record, here's the OP title:
> US prison workers produce $11B worth of goods and services for ‘little to no pay at all’
And here's the current HN post title: "US prison slaves produce $11B worth of goods and services."