‘Sea Slaves’: The human misery that feeds pets and livestock | Hacker News Reader

‘Sea Slaves’: The human misery that feeds pets and livestock

nytimes.com

236 pointslkurtz121 comments

It's very sad that Lang Long had to go through all the brutal hardship, and it is overwhelmingly tragic for him and his sisters to be in such a horrible misfortune. I came to the U.S. around the age of ten and worked as a night-shift cleaner for parking lots, cleaning up people's feces and urine on the floor of a business complex, getting hit by maggot filled trash bags when trying to pack them into dumpsters, grocery store / restaurant cashier and sweeper, and suffered from depression after parents got divorced, and later in life was devastated after my father committed suicide, in several occasions planned out in detail my own suicide but was too scared to go through with it, but whenever I read articles like these I feel that what I went through was nothing.

Although I'm buried in debt now, I'm glad I had the opportunity to go through university and study the sciences which guided me in taking the proper direction in life - the U.S. is definitely one of those few places in the world where opportunities are far more accessible.

My initial reaction to these types of articles is filled with empathy and sorrow and hope that people like Lang Long will have better future, but to be honest and be for real, in certain aspects, and in current era, we depend (in many cases we're not even aware of it) on the labors of people around the world in unfortunate circumstances so that we can benefit from them - the ugly side of this is... that the world is... an unforgiving place - there's gotta be someone out there doing the dirty work for someone else, I'd imagine that even the sea-slave traffickers themselves are trying to survive no different than Lang Long is, albeit in this particular case, they're brutal and inhumane.

I hope for a day when all slaves are treated humanely or slavery completely abolished, and for the day humanoid machines or drones will take the place of humans (in more efficient way) in back-breaking work so that criminals like the traffickers will have less incentives to kidnap and put vulnerable people into inhumane slavery.

I imagine this is why organizations like these exist

http://kiva.org/

http://watsi.org/

Microloans and micro donations really improve lives in the 3rd world.

Except that's not really true.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-05-30/new-research...

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/01/do-microloans-really-...

It helps some, though to alleviate poverty, "micro-donations" would be a better choice.

Not many businesses succeed and if people who have nothing have to give back the money, they're pretty much fucked.

It's kinda like the credit situation in the west - most people are in debt to some bank.

The articles you cite doesn't really disprove my comment.

> But what about the lending organizations on the ground—should they close up shop? Karlan says no. They're doing exactly what they promised to investors: making money and creating some good while they’re at it. For instance, the studies also found that, in Mexico, microcredit helped women pay off their debts.

Besides my main point is that yes things suck, but we can always find ways to either fix it or make it suck less and less over time. I'm not stuck on any particular solution.

>the ugly side of this is... that the world is... an unforgiving place - there's gotta be someone out there doing the dirty work for someone else

Much uglier side is that our stupid culture hinders automation of human labor. We could automate 90% of physical labor with previous decade's technology if it were a political agenda (meaning will to optimize lifestyle around machine labor thus ditching expectations of interacting with retail and salesman employees when buying products etc). It's just that overwhelming majority of people are ok with current state of things as they are either because they have won the lottery of being in 1st world and with money or because they work like biorobots in the rest of the world and don't have time to think.

I know the media likes to paint a bleak picture of the world cause that is what drives clicks to their sites and keeps their ad businesses rolling, but ...

Doesn't it feel like the world has constantly been in this constant state of extreme suffering and extreme joy both co-existing in the modern era of humanity?

For all the talk of progress a country may paint, they are either engaging in oppressive tactics locally or abroad.

This seems to apply to a vast majority of countries throughout the world.

I don't like to blame an ideology for humanities woes, because it is just that: an ideology.

It does however seem that this unfettered capitalism has churned a greed so strong that those in power will do anything to keep their money-machines rolling.

Eg.

- Oil spills that indefinitely damage ocean-life for decades,centuries ...

- Women and Child-trafficking to keep the prostitution industry going

- Drug-smuggling, human-smuggling and all other types of smuggling to keep those industries going

It almost feels like it never got worse, it just got more exposure and that its always been there, in the dark corners where we are scared to look, because we'd much rather shelter our lives with a quasi-happiness that ignores such an extreme-suffering of our fellow man/woman/child.

I blame us all, starting with myself.

>It almost feels like it never got worse, it just got more exposure and that its always been there,

It's harrowing that the 20th century was labeled a century of genocide, when in reality it was the century that started exposing and denouncing it.

Also the century that perfected and industrialized it.

But yes, the exposure and outrage and "never again" is legitimately progress...

However, post 1990, the number of people killed in wars and conflicts has gone down significantly.

You really should read the recent report on the Millenium development project and how its goals have been reached.

http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progre...

The media paints a black picture because that sells clicks, but in fact, the world is now a much better place than it has ever been. Despite population growth, fewer and fewer people live in extreme poverty. More and more children have access to education. Child mortality is down. More people have access to clean water. And, outside that report, wars kill fewer people than before.

I don't think capitalism is "unfettered", but the access to global market economy has been a factor in bringing this development throughout the world, particularly in China and India, which used to have huge numbers of extremely poor people.

You've got the wrong suspect, chief.

All these things and worse happen under totalitarian governments with planned economies.

It's human nature that is the problem - some people would rather enslave than liberate.

The story, and other stories linked in some of the comments, concern terrible things that happen to people in poor countries involved in producing things for rich countries.

If those stories have not sufficiently depressed you, take a look at what happens to much of our stuff when we are done with it, and much of it ends up back in poor countries for salvage.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132204954/after-dump-what-happ...

http://news.discovery.com/tech/indias-poor-risk-slow-death-r...

Thailand is a huge culprit here and they get away with it because they managed to sandwich themselves as valuable allies to the west.

I do wonder if there is any sort of image parsing and other analysis we can do on the oceans to spot these slave vessels.

Having traveled to Thailand I was pretty shocked at how open(ly exploitive) and shameless the sex trade there is.

I've always wondered why the Thai government and King are okay with condoning the massive sex tourism industry there (the majority of which is built to serve foreigners... which stands in contrast to the sex industries in other Asian countries). Don't they know that in the western world, Thais are at the butt of all the stereotypical sucky-sucky-me-so-horny jokes?

I find it unbelievably demeaning culturally... and it seems so contradictory to the otherwise prideful Thai culture...

Any local Thais care to comment?

Thailand's sex industry is indeed massive, but the vast majority of it caters to Thais; the bits that target Westerners -- a few dozen gogo bars in a country of 67 million -- just happen to have a much higher profile. Essentially all the women working in it are there of their own free will, if almost always because of economic hardship. (Typical scenario: Poor rural girl gets pregnant, boy disappears/dies in traffic accident. Girl can't support child and herself with farm labor or factory work, so she leaves the kid with grandparents and goes off to Pattaya.)

And oh: the "me so horny" line comes from Full Metal Jacket, a Vietnam war movie.

I think comparatively, Thai's sex industry is way more foreign-friendly than any of the other asian countries (with maybe the exception of Phillipines).

And yes, I do know the genesis of the "me so horny" line, but my point still stands. Thailand, especially the seedier aspects, is synonymous with "sex tourism" in the west.

Compare the image of Thailand's sex industry with say that of Amsterdam's red light district...

You are massively overstating the case. While I'm vaguely aware from various news stories that sex tourism does exist in Thailand, it's hardly the first thing that comes to mind. Food and diving have 40X and 13X and more google hits, respectively, and sex tourism doesn't show up on the list of google typehead choices even if you push it to "thailand se".

You are right of course - people have different perceptions; for me, diving is definitely the thing that comes to my mind from Thailand, even if I have never done any scuba diving myself. The next things are beaches, food and the tsunami.

But regarding what Google typeahead suggests to you, it depends on your location and perhaps your own search history. For me the options with "Thailand se" are september, seasons, sevärdheter ("sights" in Swedish). So if someone sees proposals with "Thailand sex", it could be because he or she has been doing previous searches for Thai sex tourism.

I'm struggling to take seriously any article from the NYT that is supposed to invoke outrage since I got duped by that recent nail salon article.

What was the tldr of the nail salon dupe?

Former NYT columnist Richard Bernstein laid down several research failures in Nir's original piece. I haven't read enough to agree with the assertion that it is duplicitous, but the refutation is compelling. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/jul/25/nail-salons...

A lot of this is similar to the fishing industry in US, long exhausting shifts, dangerous slippery conditions, and cramped noisy sleeping quarters. The issue with minor cuts leading to infection is also persistent; "gurry" (misc fish parts) and salt water get under your gloves. There're even "mother ships," though they're referred to as tenders.

Of course this is all voluntary, and the pay is much better. There're also environmental regulations, prohibiting unsustainable fishing practices.

Each time I read a sad story like that in the comfort of my flat, I wonder: what can I do to help them? Then, I can't think of anything, and my mind tries to forget this cruelty being inflicted to others, and I move on with my life...

I wonder the same thing. I think it boils down to donating to charity that helps people like this, and voting with your wallet by not buying products that are involved in this.

You may not be able to directly help those currently enslaved by this system. But you can stop consuming the products that it produces, and encourage your friends and family to stop consuming these products.

For starters you can do what others suggested: don't buy products produced by this kind of labour. Then, you might take the time to ponder the causes of such things happening in the first place. I'll give a hint: it's capitalism, and the reason you don't see exploitation to such an extent in the West is because of the (very bloody) struggles workers waged here during the past two centuries. Then it's up to you what to do with that realization.

"Bar codes on pet food in some European countries enable far-flung consumers to track Thai-exported seafood to its onshore processing facilities, where it was canned or otherwise packaged."

I'd be one of those far-flung consumers if I was given the choice? I will read tuna cans more carefully.

Two things that would improve the plight of these people:

1) fish origin labelling - which has massive benefits of other types. Currently there just isn't enough 'look through' to enable consumers to determine the source of seafood products.

2) a more developed economy in Cambodia and other places, so that nobody turns to people smugglers in desperation.

I don't know how anyone can read an article like this and still think seasteading can create a libertarian utopia.

Oh, why not. I have time.

I don't think the seasteaders contend that there is something magic about being alone on the ocean that makes a good society. So in that sense, seasteading would not "create" anything.

Rather, their idea is that the same freedom and informality that allows definitely-horrible things like this, would also allow for controversially horrible things, like libertarian policies.

Not the sword but the wielder, etc.

The people dreaming up the seasteading plans imagine self-sustaining, seaworthy rafts populated by like-minded individuals. They are, typically, the sort of person who has a rather positive opinion of human nature, and imagine that most other people are at least a tiny bit rational and ethical.

They are not just ignoring, but never even considering, those people who already live "free" on the high seas: pirates, human traffickers, poachers of protected fisheries, smugglers, toxic waste dumpers, and the generally unsavory characters who are largely invisible to the rest of the world.

Any seastead will eventually encounter those people, who are already out there, on their reefers and other largely obsoleted vessels. They do not subscribe to the non-aggression principle (NAP), and are often very skilled at concealing their unethical behavior from observers. I have never seen this issue seriously addressed by any NAP-libertarian.

What do you do when a ship pulls up to your seastead's floating dock, and you see an unhappy man bolted to the deck with a neck chain? If the raft next door runs a brothel, how do you really know that none of the employees have been coerced into working there? If a factory-mothership offers to sell you its by-catch, should you worry about where it came from? Could a group of armed "guests" take control of your floating home? What do you do when your fish farm gets poached? Will you always know where the line between non-interference and complicity lies? If you make any wrong decisions, you may die, or attract the future ire of someone better armed than you.

The key concept is that people who have better reasons for evading the laws of nation-states--typically prison or execution--are already out there. Furthermore, you can't positively identify them or their motives, nor can you avoid dealing with them in the long run. And if you establish a system that deals with them (and naturally, the traditional seasteader's bogeyman of a state-owned navy vessel) acceptably, how do you prevent that from turning into a government? And if those guys are already out there thumbing their noses at the law, why bother with the complicated engineering projects? Just buy an old reefer and take it out beyond the territorial limit, and you're done.

It all makes me think that seasteading is a way to scam people afraid of losing some of their money into actually losing most of their money. If the promoters weren't out to sell speculative floating concrete boxes to credulous suckers, they could be actually operating one of those motherships, supplying and trading with people who live in international waters, on their existing convenience-flagged vessels. Why aren't they?

>The key concept is that people who have better reasons for evading the laws of nation-states--typically prison or execution--are already out there. Furthermore, you can't positively identify them or their motives, nor can you avoid dealing with them in the long run. And if you establish a system that deals with them (and naturally, the traditional seasteader's bogeyman of a state-owned navy vessel) acceptably, how do you prevent that from turning into a government?

Why not let it turn into a government? I'm not a libertarian, but I don't think libertarians are quite anarchists.

With regards to security, that just doesn't seem too hard of a problem, at least against non-state actors. Hopefully the place should easily throw off enough surplus to afford a security force that could take on pirates.

Now, I may be describing a more centralized authoritarian setup than a libertarian might be comfortable with. But Dubai and Singapore are real places not under threat by pirates, while I can't think of a libertarian society that actually exists anywhere.

It's sad how little attention contemporary slavery gets versus historical examples of slavery. It would be great if Hollywood made a movie about this (or slavery in the middle east committed by Western allies).

Or slavery in the United States. Yep.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicagarrison/the-new-american-sla...

That's not slavery, it's kidnapping, plain and simple. It's illegal and not condoned in any way by the U.S. government or society at large, so comparing it to slavery is a bit hyperbolic. But yes, it still sucks

Since when did slavery not involve kidnapping?

Slavery isn't defined as an inherently legal practice, it simply was legal in some places at some times.

The secondarily linked story does also talk about local law enforcement being involved, so that is at least condoned "in a way", not "not in any way".

Slavery doesn't involve kidnapping if there is a legal framework for selling people (which by definition isn't kidnapping).

Are you talking about people born into slavery? Like from slave parents. Because the transition from non slave to slave is some form of kidnapping/trafficking.

The conversion of something to property is almost always a theft of some sort.

I think the Romans could sell their family members into slavery to pay off debts, etc.

Or themselves.

Debt slavery[1] doesn't involve kidnapping (by any conventional definition). It's probably the most common kind of slavery these days.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

There are people in the South Asian sub continent as well as SEAsia where families will sell other members into slavery for varying economic and social reasons. It involves no kidnapping. Sometimes it's for very menial and manual labor (tea picking, for example, next time someone enjoys some Assam tea) or are later sold into human trafficking rings.

Being illegal or not condoned doesn't make it not slavery. These enterprises often operate in gray regions of the law and find ways to blur the lines between slavery and employment, so it's important not to throw away the label just because it's not officially condoned.

World rejoices as first-worlder solves slavery problem. Millions of slaves around the world now considered free under new definition

Humans held and treated like property will henceforth not be considered slaves if their country has laws against the practice. When asked how he came upon the genius solution to the century-old problem, marknutter nodded at the portrait of former President G.W. Bush hanging above his fireplace. "I was inspired by President Bush... I mean... enhanced interrogation... genius!"

Mission Accomplished!

I'm sorry I have a strong aversion to hyperbole, but if you're going to compare the situations outlined in the article to slavery you're going to have to lump a lot of other stuff into the slavery pile as well. It's important to preserve the weight of words lest you further increase people's apathy.

I agree with this 100%. There are a lot of previously useful words that mean almost nothing today. "Slavery" is one. "Rape" is another. I know people think they're doing good when they try to expand the definition like that, but all they're really doing is taking away our capacity to describe things accurately.

This seems like pure uncivil sarcasm, rather than anything constructive. If you think that marknutter's insistence on precise useage of words causes additional harm to those enslaved (by strict or loose definition), or prevents their liberation, then why not explain that rather than sneering at him?

Yeah...

You haven't had the misfortune of having to witness REAL slavery. Real slavery is going on a walk outside the embassy and seeing a 6 year old domestic girl given a LEGAL black eye by the fist of her mistress. And there is nothing you can do about it.

That's when I learned... if you can call the police or get the authorities to intervene... then it's not slavery.

Slavery has got to be the worst thing I've ever seen in my life. Worse than combat even. Because there is nothing you can do. It's just in your face. This was way back in the early 90's... and I still remember the girl look up at me afterwards... a few seconds went by... and a trickle of blood started to come from her nose.

Yeah...

I just went back to the embassy. Certain parts of Africa back then were just not tourist spots.

> That's when I learned... if you can call the police or get the authorities to intervene... then it's not slavery.

Did you read the article? These women are beaten and raped and the police are helping the business owner ensure that the women remain his legal property.

Sounds like he didn't need to read the article, he's seen this first hand

But he clearly misses the point that the article is about police facilitating enslavement.

And you missed my point that you can still appeal to authorities.

As I said in another comment... you have the option to call in the Feds. I'm talking about people in situations where they have NO option to call in ANYONE. And not only them. Anyone who wanted to help them... maybe just because they witnessed it and they wanted to put an end to it... that would-be good Samaritan has no recourse either.

No Feds. Central governments could be weak, corrupt or both back then. (They still can come to think of it.)

No police. Many places HAD nonexistent police forces. Things have changed in some parts of Africa... but I don't know about everywhere.

No nothing. And it might not only be Africa. This may happen in parts of Asia or the MidEast region as well. I only WITNESSED it in Africa. There are a lot of people living some horrible lives out there. And they don't have police, or Feds or journalists to write about them.

> "Southern slave codes did make willful killing of a slave illegal in most cases.[8] For example, in 1791 the North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder, unless done in resisting or under moderate correction.[8] Historian Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave. ... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was “convicted of cruel treatment,” the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."[9]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

In theory (and depending on the year and state), slaves in America could also appeal to authorities.

Whether or not such appeals would have been effective are another matter (although it should be noted that these laws were in fact OCCASIONALLY enforced, putting this slightly outside the realm of the purely theoretical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_Uni...), but you seem to be discussing whether or not such appeals are theoretically allowed.

With that in mind, the shitty logic of this statement should be pretty clear to see:

> "That's when I learned... if you can call the police or get the authorities to intervene... then it's not slavery."

> For example, in 1791 the North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder, unless done in resisting or under moderate correction.

My God, but those last three words are creepy. I mean, of course the whole enterprise of slavery is beyond creepy, so much so that it's almost too big to take in; but the idea of 'moderate correction' in the first place, and the shrugging acknowledgement that it might lead to killing, is just 'human-scale' enough for me to experience a truly visceral reaction to it. Ugh.

The option of calling the Feds isn't that helpful to an immigrant worker with very little English whose last encounter with law enforcement was being returned to their farm in a squad car with accompanying warnings though. When most people's concerns about immigrants begins and ends with the question of "but they're not going to overstay their visa or take jobs away from local people are they?" and there aren't many people around anyway it's not like they're inundated with options. Journalists don't pop by every day.

I agree that the situation you describe is slavery. But I think your definition of slavery is far too narrow. By your argument, a country in which slavery has been banned and law enforcement agents are enforcing this ban, by definition has no slavery.

Victims do not always have the option of appealing to authorities, even in countries like the United States. Victims can be threatened or restrained. And, like any other abusive relationship, that may not even occur to the victim as an option.

Slavery is defined as the treatment on human beings as property, in that people are bought and sold. Whether or not the country condones this practice is irrelevant.

We don't doubt what you saw, or that it was bad/immoral.

But let's be clear, you've essentially used this fallacy (not to mention the appeal to emotion) to support/base your point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I.e. "True slavery means that police/authorities won't intervene". It shows that you don't have a well-defined definition of slavery, or are using one that is too-constrained to the generally-accepted definition of slave/slavery. Here are a few:

[...]a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

[...]a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation.

[...]a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something.

Going through your definitions...

1. Yes, this person is a slave.

2. No, this person is underpaid.

3. No, this person is dependent.

According to you. The definition of the word slavery isn't nearly as specific.

Your first definition fits exactly with his example. It being legal. Drop the logical fallacy crap.

Could also be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

"Well there are places were there are NO law enforcement so all other definitions of slavery aren't as real."

You're citing the oxford dictionary. If you look at the example sentences, the latter two cases are figurative, not literal. Only the first definition refers to literal slavery.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...

However, I agree there's ambiguity. One of the additional example sentences of the first definition includes a case where the slavery was illegal.

If someone is held as a slave and effectively beyond the reach and help of the law, then it does them little good to know that their situation is technically not tolerated by society.

But citing the latter two definitions of slavery from Oxford is not a good way of making this point. Those definition are incorrect, when referring to literal slavery.

Probably what most people mean when they say slave is something like "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them, or a person who is illegally held as such yet beyond the recourse of the law"

[Click on "more examples sentences" to see the broader meaning of the definitions cited]

Well, I guess you have a point if you accept that the US stoops as low as some parts of Africa in the 90's - at least you can call the police...

> "if you can call the police or get the authorities to intervene... then it's not slavery"

there are parts of the US where it's very difficult to get the police to intervene. I work (indirectly) with a group that helps women and children escape from forced polygamy in groups like the FLDS, AUB, Kingston, and similar; in quite a few areas the local police are "true believers" who won't investigate members of their own group, and in fact who will work to bring escapees back to a situation that is fairly described as "slavery".

Does the FBI also ignore these cases when reported?

The problem is that embassies usually are protected spaces where the host country police cannot intervene, the embassy personnel is under diplomatic immunity and the "worst" punishment the host country can deliver is declaring the offender a "persona non grata", but this is a diplomatic affront of the highest severity itself.

No one risks international relationships for a child or a woman.

edit, as I see some downvoting: that last sentence was not meant like I'd support that system. It's just a description how the world works.

I think you are being downvoted because the parent comment was about the situation in the US, and asking if the FBI ignores it.

Your comment about embassies doesn't make a lot of sense in that context.

The question was about forced polygamy groups, not South Africa.

There was such a case with an Indian woman who was a diplomat, actually. It didn't go over well, politically.

http://world.time.com/2013/12/17/indian-diplomats-arrest-in-...

it's difficult to get the FBI involved. They tend to take on only the most extreme cases.

I HATE those guys. (Forced polygamy groups.)

So keep up the good work.

Only point I wanted to make is that you still have the option of calling in the Feds. There are no Feds in certain places. Or the "Feds" are weak or corrupt. Maybe even both if you are unlucky enough. I'm talking about being in a situation where there is no way out not only for the abused... but even for those who might want to help. There is LITERALLY... no legal recourse. In your work... you have legal avenues outside of the local police. That's my point.

> "you still have the option of calling in the Feds"

sometimes it even works. We might be able to help a tiny fraction find their way out of slavery. That doesn't make it any less slavery.

> Certain parts of Africa back then were just not tourist spots.

Glad it's caught up to your expectations.

I don't know if that was meant to be flip... but Africa has made a lot of progress since my first introduction to it. There are tour groups snow boarding in the Kalahari today. This would not have been imaginable in an era of famine, Apartheid, and genocides where a million could be killed with no one really raising an alarm about it.

> if you can call the police or get the authorities to intervene... then it's not slavery.

I'm not sure this definition pans out. This would mean slavery cannot happen in a country where it's not legal.

Take an unfortunate whose been enslaved in a nation where it's legal. They're kept in a basement, chained to a table, made to work every waking hour.

One day, that nation passes a law making slavery illegal.

While this person's situation has not changed one iota, using your definition they were a slave yesterday and not a slave today.

In fact, since 1981 there is no nation in the world where slavery is legal.[1] So, using this definition strictly...slavery literally does not exist.

1. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/world/mauritania.slav...

I got a visual from this comment that I don't think I'll ever get rid of. So disturbing, sad, and enraging all at once.

Did you read the article? Yep, real slavery in the U.S.

Sure, we can play which slavery is worse than other slavery.

The Whistleblower (2010 film) is one example of a film about one of the many forms of modern slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Whistleblower

Not to be confused (as I was) with the 1986 film with almost the identical name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Whistle_Blower

vs the one you speak of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Whistleblower

I love English :) Thanks for clarifying this.

   > "Mars moved to solution A"

   > "Nestle says they are doing all they can (mentions nothing)".

why people still consume nestle? is it because their (free to collect) water is cheaper?

we had better allow them to come over here to the USA.

Right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com