Two people constitutes brigading? By that standard, you ought to ban the lot of us from .world!

I intended to respond but this lot beat me to the punch. The only thing I'll emphasize is The Sun, a tabloid rag with a history of false reporting, is the only original reporting. The other outlets are parroting them, some without attribution by simply stating "according to reports" like the above linked NZ Herald, or indirectly by attributing to a report which attributes it to another and so on, until it ultimately gets back to The Sun, like in this India Times article.

NYT: "Dictator Kim Jong Un has declared that serving the sausage was an act of treason, The Sun reports..."

Vice: "One thing to keep in mind about this report is that you have to take it with a grain of salt. It originates from The Sun, a tabloid that doesn’t have a ton of credibility." -Emphasis mine because it's funny-

The Mirror: . "One vendor, who is based in the northern province of Ryanggang, stressed that authorities have been monitoring them closely. The vendor told The Sun..."

Regardless, none of this really matters. This "call for commentary" appears to be your attempt to legitimize your moderation as we're doing scarcely more than the bloke you banned for answering your request. You're doing less. Should you be banned?

If you can't be impartial, or at least honest about it when you aren't, consider handing the job to someone who can.

Do you have an actual reason to suspect the story is false? Post it here. I won't delete it if you credibly back your claims up.

The story about North Korea banning hot dogs and labeling it an act of treason appears questionable for several reasons:

1. Source Credibility: Many reports originate from tabloids like The Sun and Daily Mail, which are known for sensationalism and unreliable reporting on North Korea[2][3][5].

2. Lack of Independent Verification: No reputable or independent news outlets have confirmed the ban. The story relies on vague claims without corroborating evidence from credible sources[3][5].

3. Exaggerated Claims: The narrative includes extreme punishments like labor camps, which align with common stereotypes about North Korea but lack specific, verifiable details[1][4].

These factors suggest the story may be exaggerated or fabricated.

Citations: [1] 'Act of Treason': Kim Jong Un Bans Cooking and Sale of Hot Dogs in ... https://www.latestly.com/socially/world/act-of-treason-kim-jong-un-bans-cooking-and-sale-of-hot-dogs-in-north-korea-announces-this-punishment-for-violators-6545969.html [2] Kim Jong Un Has Banned Hot Dogs, People Caught With Hot Dogs ... https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3535388/kim-jong-un-has-banned-hot-dogs-people-caught-with-hot-dogs-will-be-thrown-in-north-korean-labor-camp [3] Internet hilariously react over Kim Jong Un's alleged move to ban ... https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/k-pop/news-bro-glizzy-gatekeeper-internet-hilariously-react-kim-jong-un-s-alleged-move-ban-north-koreans-eating-hot-dogs [4] Kim Jong Un bans hotdogs: A look at other unusual prohibitions in ... https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/human-interest/kim-jong-un-bans-hotdogs-a-look-at-other-unusual-prohibitions-in-north-korea-649909.html [5] North Korea Declares Hot Dogs an Act of 'Treason' - Political Wire https://politicalwire.com/2025/01/06/north-korea-declares-hot-dogs-an-act-of-treason/

The problem with reporting on the DPRK is that information is extremely limited on what is actually going on there. Most reports come from defectors, and said defectors are notoriously dubious in their accounts, something the WikiPedia page on Media Coverage of North Korea spells out quite clearly. These defectors are also held in confined cells for around 6 months before being released to the public in the ROK, in... unkind conditions, and pressured into divulging information. Additionally, defectors are paid for giving testemonials, and these testimonials are paid more the more severe they are. From the Wiki page:

Felix Abt, a Swiss businessman who lived in the DPRK, argues that defectors are inherently biased. He says that 70 percent of defectors in South Korea are unemployed, and selling sensationalist stories is a way for them to make a living.

Side note: there is a great documentary on the treatment of North Korean defectors titled Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul, which interviews North Korean defectors and laywers legally defending them, if you're curious.

Because of these issues, there is a long history of what we consider legitimate news sources of reporting and then walking back stories. Even the famous "120 dogs" execution ended up to have been a fabrication originating in a Chinese satirical column, reported entirely seriously and later walked back by some news outlets. The famous "unicorn lair" story ended up being a misunderstanding:

In fact, the report is a propaganda piece likely geared at shoring up the rule of Kim Jong Eun, North Korea's young and relatively new leader, said Sung-Yoon Lee, a professor of Korean studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Most likely, North Koreans don't take the report literally, Lee told LiveScience.

"It's more symbolic," Lee said, adding, "My take is North Koreans don't believe all of that, but they bring certain symbolic value to celebrating your own identify, maybe even notions of cultural exceptionalism and superiority. It boosts morale."

These aren't tabloids, these are mainstream news sources. NBC News reported the 120 dogs story. Same with USA Today. The frequently reported concept of "state-mandated haircut styles", as an example, also ended up being bogus sensationalism. People have made entire videos going over this long-running sensationalist misinformation, why it exists, and debunking some of the more absurd articles.

As for Radio Free Asia, it is US-government founded and funded. There is good reason to be skeptical of reports sourced entirely from RFA about geopolitical enemies of the US, especially concerning a hermit country with very little accurate information coming out of it due to its secluded nature. Until we see hard evidence, I don't see why we should trust it, considering the track record of reporting on North Korea.

This does not mean the subject of this article is necessarily false, but it does mean that uncritically accepting it as true when there is a proven track record of outlandish and absurd stories being reported about the DPRK that we should question its validity until proof is provided beyond heresay from a US-government funded media outlet. People are right to distrust the article, and I don't think this is a good hill to die on and ban people over. I don't generally believe anything about the DPRK unless there's hard proof for it because of how notoriously unreliable reporting on it is. You don't have to support the DPRK to question absurd sensationalist articles.