8 ms·
Outside of just wanting privacy for its own sake, there are many, many reasons to keep social media profiles private: health privacy, sexual orientation privacy
by testfoobar 1y ago
Outside of just wanting privacy for its own sake, there are many, many reasons to keep social media profiles private: health privacy, sexual orientation privacy, relationship privacy, location privacy, financial privacy, etc.
“To facilitate this vetting, all applicants for F, M and J non-immigrant visas will be asked to adjust the privacy settings on all their social media profiles to ‘public’”, the official said.
- Mountain_Skies 1y agoMuch of the world is against LBGTQ+ rights. If an immigrant has social media posts expressing open hatred and even calls for violence against people with sexual orientations not approved of in their home culture, will you still have an open mind about welcoming them in the US with open arms? This isn't theoretical. Both China and India, the two countries that supply the most students to the US, prohibit marriage equality. Both have extensive discrimination throughout their societies, both at the government and cultural levels.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- digianarchist 1y agoRight. That’s what these new powers will be used for. To defend LGBT folks in the United States. /s
- derektank 1y agoObviously not by this administration, but if we are creating new powers, the question of the principle is relevant and its potential use by a Democratic administration is also relevant. I, personally, don't see a problem with creating an ideological test for certain kinds of visa holders or permanent residents. As Karl Popper noted in outlining the paradox of tolerance, unlimited tolerance can lead to the destruction of tolerance itself. I think it's worth exploring ways for the government to prevent enemies of liberalism from entering the country, even if we already face illiberalism at home. That being said, I think this specific proposal threatens personal privacy far too much to be justified.
- scarecrowbob 1y agoI dunno, I think it's not super great that I might not be able to pass an ideological test to get into my own damn country. Why do they get to say that what I believe isn't "American". Like, I'm "Texas from Texas"- my anglo ancestors go back before the 1836 revolution. But I'm not a racist so I have often been told that I'm "not really from Texas". It's the same vibe here. I'm way more worried about the fact that they wouldn't let me back into the country if I had to pass an ideological litmus test than I am worried that someone with illiberal beliefs is going to join the other theocrats in Texas.
- riffraff 1y agoAre you really advocating for 1984's thoughtpolice? If someone has "bad" ideas and they keep them to themselves by having private social media accounts, it's crazy to think it's a risk to society. Countries already have rules to deal with hate speech, inciting riots, etc.
- TheOtherHobbes 1y agoTo add some nuance to Popper's argument, the implication is that intolerance means violence against others. People can believe whatever they like as long as they don't become a movement dedicated to murdering those they don't like. Historically, observably, and objectively, the US right has much more of a history with political murder than the left does. This isn't some ideological purity test about "liberalism". This is about maintaining a culture that supports a broad spectrum of views in a peaceful way. When the state itself crosses that line the state itself becomes oppressive, and would-be residents should be asking themselves whether that's the kind of state they want to live in, or visit.
- BLKNSLVR 1y agoWell, to me, it sounds as if the ban on LGBT folks joining the armed forces is a kind of protection of LGBT folks, especially given the world seems to be moving towards an inevitable near-future in which US forces will be deployed to Canada, Greenland, Panama, Iran, Russia (to protect it from invasion by Ukraine and/or Europe), Gaza (to protect the construction of Trump's Oasis on the Mediterranean), Taiwan. Non-LGBT front line.
- sundaeofshock 1y agoYes. I wouldn’t be happy they hold those views, but I don’t support basing a person’s entry into the US on how the feel about Donald Trump. Of course, your scenario is a big ol’ straw person, as those beliefs are not what they are screening for.
- dmoy 1y agoIt might not be what the US is screening for, but if you're forced to make your account public, not just to the US, then your own government would also know.
- bastardoperator 1y agoThis isn't a screening process, it's a deterrent.
- kennywinker 1y agoUntil 2015 gay marriage was illegal in many states. Plenty here hold pretty nasty anti lgbtq beliefs. This is a bad argument for screening visa applicants for beliefs, and not what this new rule will be used for. It will be used to deny anyone critical of israeli genocide, people who think we shouldn’t destroy the planet’s climate, and people who think women should control their own bodies.
- andsoitis 1y ago> This is a bad argument for screening visa applicants for beliefs, and not what this new rule will be used for. And do you think permanent residency or citizen applicants should be screened for their beliefs?
- dlahoda 1y agoit was for visa while ago https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/dec/07/einstein-albert-usa-visa-1932 https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/dec/07/einstein... even for jewish nobel laureats in physics why it should be different for more serious things like residence or citizenship?
- sibhezt 1y ago[flagged]
- disgruntledphd2 1y agoWhat do you call what's happening in Gaza then?
- sibhezt 1y agoA war, an armed conflict. Started by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups against Israel, on October 7th 2023.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago
- frollogaston 1y agoTo answer your question, yes those people should be welcome, yes I'm ok with people coming from China and India.
- UncleMeat 1y agoThe only students who've ever called me a homophobic slur were born in the US.
- dullcrisp 1y agoI’m sure we can still deport them to El Salvador.
- eddythompson80 1y agoMan, I'm sorry to tell you. But you must not have been around the world much.
- bigbacaloa 1y ago[dead]
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> you must not have been around the world much Gay man here. Multi-ethnic, world travelled. American evangelicals are up there with the mullahs in opposing both free society and everything Christ preached.
- throwaway290 1y agoYour comparison of Muslims and American evangelicals has self selecting bias. There are places where non straight orientation is punishable by law or extrajudicially. Maybe they call you homophobic slurs but you might not walk to tell the tale. None of those places are Catholic as far as I know. One or two of them bordering Israel. In Russia if it's not done by Muslim extremists than by fascists/activists or by government classifying LGBT as extremism. (This is not anti Russian propaganda, it's in the laws. I lived in Russia for most of my life and I met let me count... zero gay people that I know of. But I know some forever unmarried people, I wonder what's going on;)
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
- bigyabai 1y agoMany Americans have never seriously looked at a map before. Should they be categorically denied entry to foreign countries for their stereotypical ignorance? Here in America, you can't put someone on trial for a crime they haven't committed. Even if you think they're from a suspicious country. That's called racial profiling, and it's forbidden by civil rights laws for a reason; nobody should have to tolerate the indignation of their peer's stupidity.
- Freedom2 1y ago> Here in America, you can't put someone on trial for a crime they haven't committed Actually in the US you can - it's why there's stories of innocent men and women being released from jail after other evidence proves their innocence (eg: DNA).
- bigyabai 1y agoThat's exactly why they're being released, though. If you manufacture a bogus case or plant evidence against someone, that's not probable cause. You're not acting within the acceptable norms of a just society, and the rectification of these cases is proof. Oftentimes the falsely persecuted will countersue, especially if they get an early injunction.
- chrz 1y agoThese people spend years in prison before "correcting" that small mistake
- recursive 1y agoIf we know someone has committed the crime before the trial, we could really streamline the judicial process.
- lurk2 1y ago> you can't put someone on trial for a crime they haven't committed. What do you think happened in a trial where a not guilty verdict is reached?
- voidUpdate 1y agoI mean, given the current political climate, I think someone with posts like that would be welcomed easily, and people who are pro LGBT, especially pro-trans, would be denied outright
- vFunct 1y agoThere’s also a lot of reasons to have a completely public social media account.
- sneak 1y agoAnother of the thousand reasons people should delete their Facebook and Instagram accounts.
- jmye 1y agoWouldn’t that be likely to be taken as identical to having a locked one? I don’t use traditional social media, and never have, and have always assumed that would cause me to “fail” a test like this. (Sorry, I mean this to read as a question, not an assertion.)
- Liquix 1y agoif having an instagram/tiktok/facebook/etc is a hard requirement for entering the country, we've truly reached peak clown world
- emodendroket 1y agoBeing unreasonable seems like half the point.
- codedokode 1y agoIf 99% have the account then rejecting the 1% seems like a good way to not let different weirdos (like me) enter the country? And the irony is that this would reject only those who properly did the paperwork and won't stop the people who prefer different methods of entry.
- emodendroket 1y agoNobody is illegally entering the country and then beginning graduate studies at Harvard, so if you understand this as an attack on universities and an attempt to essentially “close” the country then it makes perfect sense. That JD Vance interview where he went on about “we didn’t need immigrants to get to the moon” is probably the clearest statement of their outlook.
- deleted 1y ago
- dashundchen 1y agoThe party who loves to scream about social credit scores in China is essentially implementing... A social credit score, where only government approved speech is allowed.
- tempodox 1y agoI can already see it transform from “must not be critical” to “must be pro-American propaganda”. One you see that extortion works, you tighten the screws to see how much you can get out of it before it flops.