The gaming quality on yt and twitch can be measured with ai to check if you are not pretending. The immigration interview full of questions about grand theft auto.
HN born as a place for founders to pretend to be civilized and knowledgable can extend to cover everyone. I mean, I wouldnt give a visum to the guy writing this comment.
As other pointed out, border control is already an area where an agent can stop basically anyone without any provable justification. More that this specific rule, the whole social climate needs to change to ever get back to a balanced situation.
When they refused Trump started trying to force the to comply.
They're already trying to reach the same thought police type activity with American students.
Maybe you're better example is the Trump administration saying it's going to withhold transportation funding from cities because citizens their dared to protest him, issued presidential orders against law firms that represented people suing him, pulled the security clearances of people who dared to say that the 2020 election was not stolen, and threatened trees and charges against a former DHS official who wrote an unflattering op-ed in the Washington Post.
One of these is not like the other
The Supreme Court threw out the case.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c100l6jrjvno
The Twitter files were a nothing burger
That included Gateway Pundit who got kicked off Twitter for continual election disinfo claiming the election was stolen etc. All evidence points to Twitter doing that on its own.
No one has shown any proof that any social media company took down anything that wasn't against their terms of service because of a report from a federal agency or from the Biden White House.
Gateway Pundit was one of the plaintiffs and he sued because Twitter banned him for repeated election disinfo (e.g. stolen elections) and he was mad that CISA contradicted him. So was Trump who fired Chris Krebs for having the audacity to say the election wasn't stolen.
The entire lawsuit was just a part of a right-wing grievance campaign against the idea of social platforms, NGOs, or federal agencies doing any work to moderate social platforms.
The world is stupider for that campaign largely suceeding and come the next pandemic, thousands or millions could die thanks to platforms being afraid to do even the most basic moderation.
That said, this isn't a search. It is the presumption of guilt if a search is refused. I agree with you that it's bad policy, but it's not unconstitutional.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Non-LGBT front line.
Of course, your scenario is a big ol’ straw person, as those beliefs are not what they are screening for.
And do you think permanent residency or citizen applicants should be screened for their beliefs?
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?
Gay man here. Multi-ethnic, world travelled.
American evangelicals are up there with the mullahs in opposing both free society and everything Christ preached.
I didn’t mean to suggest the comparison was exhaustive. Just that both those groups, if they had control of a state, would do exactly this. (And when they have had such control, they have. See American evangelical effects on liberty in their African missions.)
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.
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).
What do you think happened in a trial where a not guilty verdict is reached?
You missed this bit that parent said:
"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?"
(Sorry, I mean this to read as a question, not an assertion.)
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.
i.e. "I don't have a social media"; "Sureeeee buddy"; "I really don't, I deleted it"; "We'll wait here until you do"
Some scary variation above.
When it’s common to have deleted your accounts due to widespread privacy impacts, it won’t be such a showstopper.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Social media is where one shares ones social life (it's in the name!). Technical discussion forums are something entirely different.
Naturally, there is sometimes crossover (I'm thinking of a motorbike forum I frequent), but to suggest the likes of HN is social media is demonstrably false.
One can share ones social life with strangers!
In fact Reddit is a prime example of a site with crossover between technical discussion forums, social media forums and mixed ones.
Ummmm. No. It's a statement of fact.
> The only definition that matters here is the governments,
No. It's the courts.
> demonstrably false
Surely not “demonstrably” false. How would you demonstrate it? You may believe that it’s not social media but there’s no reason for you to think I should not believe it is social media.
Its sort of a mark of upper class (or just having a class) in more developed societies these days.
Sidenote - all folks here working for meta - shame on you. I get the greed part, but then you define what sort of human being you are and what your legacy is.
One you see that extortion works, you tighten the screws to see how much you can get out of it before it flops.
Historically visas could and were denied for completely arbitrary reasons.
The right to free speech. Even in its restrictive First Amendment form.
Once they're in the country, sure.
----
Not that I think it's been demonstrated that this policy will improve US security or etc. Wonder if the APA applies here.
some people only consider their in-groups as worthy of having rights.
others consider all human beings as worthy of having rights.
you see that schism in play everyday almost everywhere. i fear it is not a resolvable tension (without some kind of mass severe brainwashing). it is a core beliefs kind of thing.
The assumption of discrimination is therefore baked in to every national project -- there are people who wish to participate in the nation but are barred from doing so. It's uncomfortable for many people to consider this, because it runs counter to the idea that their nations are welcoming places, but it's important to remember this discrimination occurs (even if you think it's a good idea.)
But the First Amendment does apply to the many US citizens and permanent residents who are being indirectly surveilled, profiled, and chilled in their speech as a result of the extra scrutiny of the foreign visa applicants with whom they interact and connect on social media.
Textually, it does. (The President acts without force of law when he restricts “freedom of expression.”)
Intent-wise, for those seeking entry to America, it does—our republic was formed, in part, to restrict the executive from excluding religious minorities he doesn’t liked
Legally, however, you are right.
Is this true? My understanding is that the 1A has been understood by SCOTUS as a restriction on government power to influence speech, _not_ as a right granted to individuals.
You can point out that the constitution is for Americans only etc. etc.
The thing is, that the right to free speech, as defended by court cases and by precedence, is about the market place of ideas being functional, and allowing society to figure out what it considers “true”.
This is the spirit of the clause, and the purpose behind the freedoms Americans enjoy and used to uphold.
The reading that it applies “only to American citizens, and visitors on US soil”, is an after the fact reinterpretation to win arguments online.
Free speech in America has always been about the government not being able to decide what can and can’t be said, especially when it comes down to deciding which nations can and can’t be spoken about.
Your argument, can only be built on the ruins of the American free speech experiment. Because it accepts the death of the spirit of the idea, the a marketplace of ideas as a way to address the unknowns of reality, with a centralized, and enforced way of safe topics.
For what its worth, you only reach this level of banana republic, after your information and idea markets are compromised or overwhelmed.
I’m simply pointing out that your argument on procedural merits, takes the spirit of the law to the back of the shed, and shoots it.
source https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/study/now-lack-of-a...
These are all forms of Social Media.
I'm not even comfortable with ICANN based DNS given that the identity requirements amount to an impressum. That's fine for business dealings but interpersonal communications (including the metadata) should be private from outside observers.
Why is it so difficult to believe that there are people here who view social media as a harmful thing they try to mostly avoid?
This hn account is my only social media account.
I do not use apps, nor carry a cell phone.
If your parking requires an app, I am not paying.
Should the court require me to sign an affadavid stating I do not use email nor text messaging, so shall I attest.
Fun tip for ex-redditors: you can view multiple subreddits (without an account) adding `+` between communities within URLs, e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/hackernews+worldnews+dataISbeautifu...
I don't know that "resetting my account" is the solution to "harmful and I want to avoid". I get why you're doing it in your mind (and there's validity to some parts), but to me "I see social media as harmful" means "I don't go on social media", not "I keep going on it, just with different credentials every so often".
I create an account, and delete it once I start feeling invested. If I can downvote people, I've probably ridden that account too long.
Once I start seeing the number next to my name and think "I should make that number bigger! This is fun!" then I've hit the point that I'm too invested. I'm letting the number make decisions, not me.
Then I delete it. I'll leave it deleted until I find a comment I simply cannot not respond to, and deal with being a green text person again for awhile. I'll get irritated at being blocked by default for most folks, and engage less.
It helps me self-moderate a slightly toxic experience so it's something I enjoy without it becoming a problem.
If you are just going to blindly be indistinguishable from bad actors and do no effort in distinguishing yourself., then yea, don't travel to that country.
Naturally, there is sometimes crossover (I'm thinking of a motorbike forum I frequent), but to suggest the likes of HN is social media is demonstrably false.
I’m not engaging in click fraud or attempting to monetize an account illegally. And it’s certainly doing what anyone could do on their own. Or is everyone 100% honest on social media all of the time?
If you go deep into this route you'll end up using proxies to rotate ips, which are sometimes obtained through compromised devices.
One thing is the theory, but look into how this is done, robotic interfaces like with selenium, shady proxies, account markets, you get a feel of exactly what type of people use this. If you into forums there's a lot of third worlders that go as far as using or selling fakepassports to make LI accounts.
For the applicant? Visa fraud rules. For people fucking with third parties? Absolutely nothing.
Even Uber requires facial biometrics for an account now if you try to sign up using a prepaid card and VPN.
Time to go study in Europe, folks.
You have the freedom to be off the grid, but the states have the freedom to reject your entry.
No one is saying states don’t have the right.
States can go even further. They can decide to exit economic unions, trade agreements, etc. You have sovereignty.
Everyone knows you have freedom to play cards as you see fit. Everyone who understands how the game is played, will also make moves accordingly.
There’s nothing to be defensive about.
On another topic, I think neither individuals nor the states, have sovereignity over the land, only The State has. But I may be mistaken.
If I own land, I should be able to invite anyone, anywhere to come stand on it. This idea that you have no right to freedom of movement and travel on Earth is a ridiculous one.
Passports as a concept are only about a hundred years old. Prior to that if you wanted to go somewhere, you just went.
Somehow, most people now treat “belonging to the land” as a positive concept.
Naturally there's conflicts between different rights, and yours end where other's begin.
In this case one should not be able to jeopardize the safety or well being of their neighbours by inviting
>Passports as a concept are only about a hundred years old. Prior to that if you wanted to go somewhere, you just went.
We did have castles for quite some centuries
You are mistaken.
This idea that you are somehow safer next to citizens of your own country and less safe next to citizens of a different country is simply incorrect is citizenship is the discriminator you are using.
Based on your comments in this thread, you seem to have a conclusion to which you are attached, and then work backwards from there. This comment of yours really lays that bare in its ridiculousness.
Is that what you call your country's constitution?
It's the land of your country first, without a country and without a (1T/yr) army, you might have the right to land, but not its exercise. The right to your land is guaranteed by your constitution, and in the same breath it defines that they are sovereign to all of the land in the States. It's not your land first and then the state's sovereign, but the other way around.
Since we are on the subject of the constitution,
"“The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” “To provide for the common Defence…”
So I wasn't too far off with the argument of your neighbours having a say on who you invite over to your land. It seems you are the one with the contrarian viewpoint.
Citizenship or lack thereof doesn’t tell you whether or not it is a risk to have someone participate in your society. People who believe it can serve as a proxy for this decision are mistaken.
The exact quote: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/immigration/rubio-orders-tough...
> Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday ordered more scrutiny of the social-media profiles of any foreigners seeking to visit Harvard University, telling US consular officers that applicants’ lack of an online presence might be enough evidence to deny a visa.
Is Rubio's cable sent to US embassies worldwide public? It would be nice to see the full text.
I thought ET/Hindustan Times etc showed up in Google Search results since I search from the region. But if they show up before Bloomberg/FT/WSJ etc for other regions too, then ET's SEO team is doing something terrific.
Effective immediately, all individuals applying for an F, M, or J nonimmigrant visa are requested to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media accounts to ‘public’ to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility to the United States under U.S. law.
Pick any at random to verify.
> F, M, and J visas are all nonimmigrant visas for foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in exchange programs in the United States.
Then they include in the violation bundle they sell to State.
On the other hand, maybe this will lead to people putting less stuff on social media. This would probably be a net positive.
America holds immense leverage when it comes to education, and now it seeks to use that leverage to export control of people's speech, thoughts, and movements abroad.
At least when China does this kinda thing there's not so strong a stench of hypocrisy.
I shittalked the government for a long time and got caught up in the various memes against the country before I decided to visit. I was afraid I'd be rejected (or worse, approved and arrested) and upon googling for similar experiences saw countless people freaking out about the same thing before going there.
Turns out they either don't check at all, or do check but aren't nearly as stringent as the US.
This ignores edge cases of popular Youtubers who lived there for years, made a career out of complaining, then were surprised when the government asked them to leave. Which still beats an El Salvador prison.
He learned the language, bought a house there, got married, and did not want to leave.
But even then, China doesn't stoop to the pathetic level of expending thus kind of soft-power on defending some third power that has managed to get it by the balls.
This kind of thing? When has china demanded access to foreigners' social media accounts so that they can check for anti-israel comments? Never. You think china cares what people say about foreign countries? You think china will block someone from their country because they criticized the US? Of course not. They ban you for criticizing their own country.
You are not appreciating the level of pathetic debasement we are experiencing. We are not checking for anti-american comments from foreigners. We are checking for anti-israel comments. The US government is acting like a guard dog for israel.
Edit: Even if it weren't for that, non-citizens do not have any rights and are not protected by the constitution or anything else.
Just lasagna pics, birthday cakes, kittens, golden retrievers, baby goats, maybe an artsy photo of a leaf with #blessed.
Everything I can do so that an AI running immigration background checks might match my kids to the profile of a low threat, emotionally well-regulated, consumer-minded citizen material.
Absolutely no pictures of Winnie the Pooh to keep China travel option open too.
I welcome any tips. Someone here must have cracked the code to be completely unremarkable and "wholesome" to governments.
Short of time travel, this seems impossible.
My general advice for people travelling to China is to not talk about politics on Chinese social media, or if you do just talk about the domestic politics of your home country & keep in mind that Chinese people might disagree with you. That's also my advice for people travelling to any country, but it's more important in China.
All that said, if you must discuss politics on Chinese social media while you're there, the thing the censors really have an issue with is calls for action, explicit or implied. More than one very pro-PRC heritage speaker who went to China has had their Weibo posts raging against America or Japan censored because they thought the criteria were "Posts have to be pro-China", when really the criteria is "Posts can't be a call to collective action that wasn't started by the party". What the party is actually concerned about is just stopping any sort of organised mass movement that they didn't start. The CCP's point of view is that mass movements are inherently unpredictable & could lead to civil disorder (even if they're nominally "pro-China"), so they're too risky a tool to let anyone other than the state use - important context to that is that Chinese culture, similar to some other East Asian cultures, puts way more value than we do on civil order, harmony etc.
Also if your posts do get censored, it's not as big an issue as it would be here. Where I live, the government deleting my social media posts would feel approximately as serious as armed police rappelling through my windows, and if the former happened I'd at least think about the possibility of the latter happening shortly afterwards. Think something like the Christchurch shooting live feed. It's not like that in China; it's completely normal, for example, that you get angry & post something that gets deleted by a censor, & that is literally the last you ever hear of it, a lot like tweeting something against ToS. If you continue posting about it or try to get around the censorship, eventually a police officer will visit you and talk to you over tea about why you have to stop doing that, and if you keep going that's when the actual legal consequences like deportations or arrest start.
In 2025 if you are a public person saying it you will get consequences. See Hobhouse case.
There are other people like John Cena apologizing for saying something "wrong" in English but no idea if they were threatened by CCP or by their managers
Yes, if your criticism of China is in the news they might not let you in. That doesn't apply to many people but it's still a helpful clarification.
>There are other people like John Cena apologizing for saying something "wrong" in English but no idea if they were threatened by CCP or by their managers
Managers, and the reason isn't out of fear of legal consequences but fear of boycotts. Chinese have often felt like those in the West are talking down to them or being condescending, and they've never in their life had the ability to affect those doing so. Now that people really want access to the Chinese market, it's the first time ever for many Chinese people that they feel they can have any impact on how Westerners talk about China or the Chinese people. As a result (and because China has domestic equivalents of everything), Chinese people can be very boycott happy. The government can stop Chinese people from organising boycotts & very often does so (once again, they have an issue with any sort of mass organising by default), but the government can't force people to buy tickets to John Cena's movies & they didn't view it as appropriate to censor the videos of him screwing up what he meant to say. An organic boycott by the Chinese market is the worst nightmare of a lot of businessmen because the future of their business relies on selling in China, so they'll be even more strict on their people than the Chinese government would to try to avoid that.
I do too, but they won’t let me log in without putting in a phone number.
Don't go to the US. That's the tip.
Now you have to hope that 20 years later people on social networks won't suddenly decide that "golden retrievers" is a dog whistle for something bad, which would make your accounts retroactively problematic.
The Palantir project will likely evolve to suck data directly from Meta, Gmail, X, Reddit and the systems of other US companies to create profiles based on non-public data (likes, DMs, deleted posts, comments, etc.)
This will be feed to LLMs to create a whole personality profile, including political leanings.
They know exactly what they are doing.
Should they get the chance, their intention to repeat October 7th has been clearly stated - it's in their charter. What does anyone do under those circumstances? For those who argue that Israel is an illegitimate State, I guess the practical question is where should the 9.5 million colonialist Israelis move to? And who would accept them?
"There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity". https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full
Hamas was specifically funded by Netanyahu to prevent a 2SS:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
And he weakened the moderates on purpose. So what we need to do is the opposite of Netanyahu's strategy - empower the moderates, move towards a 2SS and sanction/isolate/disempower Hamas and similar.
State Dept on what is considered Antisemitism: https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/
These definitions are intentionally broad and designed to censor criticism of Israel. You have more freedom to criticize the US Government than to criticize a foreign country.
It's on all the US embassy sites, although it says "are requested":
Effective immediately, all individuals applying for an F, M, or J nonimmigrant visa are requested to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media accounts to ‘public’ to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility to the United States under U.S. law.
https://uk.usembassy.gov/visas/
https://ca.usembassy.gov/visas/
https://in.usembassy.gov/visas/
etc.
The smart ones won’t sign to it. The dumb ones will take too long to arrest and charge.
I doubt that. I would honestly be shocked if anyone with anti-Trump posts would 'pass' DHS screening.
> “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
In IHRA’s defense, this definition was never intended for legal use. But here we are.
> Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
> Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
One does not entail the other. You can support our right to self-determination while not supporting Israel's apartheid-style policies, but this sentence conflates them.
> Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
This is pure whataboutism. Israel is actually given incredible leeway by America, and I usually see this trotted out to shut down legitimate criticism. There's a good discussion to be had about why we don't criticize China, or why we ignore atrocities in African countries, but none of that absolves Israel from its misdeeds.
> Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Call it "sparkling ethnic cleansing" then. Ironically, actual genocide scholars have pointed out that when the Shoah is your metric, then almost nothing can compare, rendering the word useless.
> One does not entail the other. You can support our right to self-determination while not supporting...policies, but this sentence conflates them.
Uh...exactly? You're criticizing the state. Per the definition you can do that, but you can't generalize to the people. And certainly, calling the state a "racist endeavor" should cross the line?
Basically, all three of your examples boil down to the same thing: you want to accuse a nation of something bad, and think it’s somehow unfair that, under this definition, you can’t then accuse a people of the act. That isn’t ambiguous. If you did the same thing for, say, Chinese people and the CCP, you’d be equally wrong. Jewish people are not of one mind about current events, and that seems like a fairly obvious point.
As far as the third item, specifically, any comparison to the Nazi party is so hyperbolic as to be in obvious bad faith.
They literally say the opposite, right in the paragraph I quoted at the top.
Yes, they give examples of criticizing Israel. But the point of the examples is that you a) can't apply standards unique to Israel, and b) if you do criticize the country, it's not fair game to extend it to an entire people.
The reasons given are extremely broad, so it makes nuances like this largely irrelevant. If an immigration officer perceives their duty (or maybe it's just their own personal opinion) to be to reject applications which are critical of Israel, then that's exactly what they're going to do. And you have no ability to appeal decisions, not that you'd even know what caused those decisions.
FWIW the people I'm referencing were also completely upstanding, educated individuals with high competence in English. It's a great way to make one loathe the double standard given to people who just illegally cross the border. Even moreso when you consider that each of these applications costs hundreds of dollars in places where that's often a rather substantial sum of money (just as it would be in most places in e.g. South America).
There are obviously issues of subjectiveness here, but that’s also nothing new in the world of immigration. These decisions are made by humans, not robots (or at least, robots trained by humans).
If a censor is trying to determine if a particular post doesn’t contain antisemetic content, this paragraph is not helpful.
Well, they do state one negative criterion:
> However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
I have never seen this principle successfully cited as an affirmative defense, however. They give examples that contradict this quote, so I don’t think we’re supposed to take it seriously.
Not quite. Don't confuse criticism of Netanyahu with criticism of Israel. Many dislike Netanyahu for various reasons, but are still broadly supportive of Israeli policies.
It's going to be impossible to get reliable polling on Iran right now because Israel's going extremely authoritarian with domestic 'information warfare.' But it's fairly certain that most Israelis will oppose what's happening, once they can speak again. For instance in early 2024 Israeli decided to destroy the Iranian embassy in Syria, killing multiple generals amongst others. This led to a largely performative counter-strike by Iran. And here 74% of Israelis opposed continued escalation if it harmed security alliances. [2]
And the Israeli government decided to carry out the recent invasion when global support for Israel is already at record lows, which means it is obviously going to hurt security alliances, especially in the mid-term (double entendre intended). Search my post history and you'll find I've been notably favorable towards most Trump policies. If an election was held tomorrow I'd happily vote against him (and anybody else who supports this stupidity), a million times over, if he drags us into another forever war. And I think that corresponds to a sizable chunk of his support. People think "we" wanted out of Ukraine out of preference to Russia. In reality "we" just want the US to stop getting involved, and wasting money (to say nothing of lives), in stupid wars all around the world, period.
[1] - https://www.timesofisrael.com/69-of-israelis-54-of-coalition...
[2] - https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-74-of-israelis-oppose-cou...
More importantly, most Americans don’t care about foreign policy.
The decades-long failure by the American left has been projecting Vietnam-era protests against the draft to modern foreign policy.
Anyone who truly believes this administration, or the American right wing in general, cares about antisemitism suffers from extraordinary levels of gullibility. The incantation of George Soros as the master manipulator behind everything "the left" does in the US is a pretty transparent placeholder for "The Jews Control Everything". White replacement theory is predicated on the belief that "The Jews" are for some reason trying to water down every white nation with masses of immigrants by sneaking in and sneakily changing immigration to open borders. Virtually every crazed conspiracy among the US right somehow ends up at "The Jews".
But it is utterly perverse that questions or criticism of the actions of a pretty vile sovereign can be dismissed as antisemitism. Many if not most American Jewish people are deeply critical of the things the Israeli government is doing (all under the cover of "to question it is antisemitism"). Israelis, though....polling of Israelis is extraordinarily uncomfortable, to such a degree that I would hardly consider the country "Western" as it is often called.
Evangelicals are also probably the most reliable base for the Republican party (though remain a minority within it), and they have an extremely positive relationship with Israel.* And then on top of this the Israel lobby is well funded and tends to shower pro-Israel politicians in money in public, and I doubt the support ends there.
This is a somewhat long-winded way to say that - yes I do believe this administration is completely and sincerely focused on Israel and the interests of Israel, and I think there are a million reasons to think this is the case. And I also don't think this is a good thing, because the Israeli government seems to have lost their minds, and I think the world was already far closer to WW3 (and has been for a number of years now) than most appreciate.
What would be billions dead because of a nutter government and US politicians love affair with Israel would make just about as much sense as Brits killing Germans because a Bosnian Serb assassinated an Austro-Hungarian royalty.
----
* - that's actually changing with younger generations, but it still remains mostly true.
100%, and I completely agree with you. This administration seems positively subservient to Israel.
But they don't care an iota about antisemitism. Many in Trump's circle are infamous antisemites. It has long been an observation that Trump is pro-Israel yet paradoxically simultaneously an antisemite. Trump himself seems to view Jewishness as being loyal only to Israel -- he has quite literally stated this -- and that those that aren't loyal to Israel are not actually Jews. Trump has frequently repeated stereotypes and caricatures about Jews.
I don't for a moment think Trump cares an iota about antisemitism, even though I think he's a strong ally of Israel. Which is fair because it's possible to be critical of Israel without being an antisemite. The simple conflation of the two -- as this administration does -- is itself antisemitism. I conflates Jews worldwide as mere vassals of Israel.
In any case I think Trump cares about things like preventing violence/intimidation against Jews. And I do think that's a reasonable concern. A certain political orientation in the US has become increasingly violent over the years and as Jews (which are distinct from the Israeli government) fall out of fashion with them, concerns of a progression towards violence are not entirely unfounded. By contrast, I do not think he cares about things like memes of long nosed bankers rubbing their hands or claims Jews are more loyal to Israel than the US.
Imagine if DHS said they are going to ban anyone who criticizes china or russia or saudi arabia from traveling to the US? Both the republicans and democratics would be raising hell. Why the silence when it comes to israel?
What Homeland is DHS securing? The US or Israel? Why is it that so much of our political class openly and unabashedly act like agents of israel? Doesn't matter who you vote for. Republican or democrat. As soon as they are elected, they all grovel for israel. How many wars are we going to fight for israel? How many american colleges are we going to attack for israel? How many people are we going to censor for israel? Just doesn't make any sense.
There are more Jewish people in the US than Israel. I guess this is what they're securing against?
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/audit-antisemitic-incid...
Or who knows, maybe they ban Trump critics or commies from entering the US? I will definitely avoid travelling to the US due to the Trump Administration's hostility towards immigrants. These screening policies will probably remain in place under the next administration.
There are more chinese in the US than jews. So is DHS going to ban anyone who makes anti-china posts? We have a lot of arabs and palestinians. Why isn't DHS protecting them? Shouldn't DHS check every israeli's social media for anti-palestinian comments?
> Or who knows, maybe they ban Trump critics or commies from entering the US.
What does that have to do with israel and "antisemitism"?
I'm not sure the DHS is protecting anyone other than the Trump Administration's narratives at this point.
Surely you aren't suggesting political power is just about the numbers? That one group of 6 million people has the same political sway as any other block of 6 million?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=74ZA-GdeQP4&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5t...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=74ZA-GdeQP4&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5t...
Also
I'm an Evangelical, and like many others, I don’t prioritize foreign policy through the lens of Israeli politics. Our core mandate is global discipleship, not geopolitical allegiance.
For example, "support for Israel among evangelicals is largely based on age and Biblical knowledge and has not been substantively impacted by the current Israel-Hamas war in Gaza... a belief that "God's covenant with the Jewish people remains intact today" has the greatest impact on support for Israel among a number of potential political, theological, sociological, and demographic factors... evangelical support for Israel remains stable from 2021 to 2024, though earlier surveys did show a sharp decline in evangelical support for Israel between 2018 and 2021...A decrease in core evangelical behavior like attending church and reading the Bible. Past studies have shown that these religious practices increase support for Israel."[2]
In addition, "The only U.S. religious groups that have a majority favorable view toward Israel are Jews (at 73%) and Protestants (at 57%), according to the survey. In particular, 72% of white evangelicals view Israel favorably... Among American Jews, 53% do not have confidence in Netanyahu and 45% do. The only U.S. religious group to demonstrate confidence in Netanyahu is white evangelical Protestants."[3] And once again, these groups are not comparable in size meaning there are a lot more supportive Evangelicals than supportive Jews.
There is also the matter of the US's current ambassador to Israel being an Evangelical who texts the president stuff like this[4].
[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/israel-poll-gen-z-biden-election-19...
[2] - https://religionnews.com/2024/06/03/new-study-measures-senti...
[3] - https://www.jta.org/2025/04/09/united-states/most-americans-...
[4] - https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2025/06/17/trump-posts-fa...
Or this is the story line that US politicians have bought and unpacked after being hand delivered by AIPAC with a brief case of money plus a set of blackmail love letters waiting to be leaked if they don’t take it.
I am convinced that our govt never had spine to stand up for freedom unless Israel/lobbyists were behind it. They quarrel amongst themselves because of Israel and agree in large numbers because of Israel.
According to Jimmy Carter:
"The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians."
https://www.latimes.com/news/la-oe-carter8dec08-story.html
Carter was of course widely (and absurdly) slandered as an antisemite. He probably wouldn't get a visa.
> Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
That's awfully anti-Semitic thinking of you, buddy. ICE HSI would like to know your current location for your free trip to the gulag.
> Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to
One stands out though
> Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
That seems to be a perfectly fine thing to do, comparing one government's policies with another. Maybe instead of saying "Nazis", maybe one can say "Government of Nazi Germany" and one wouldn't be labelled as an antisemite.
They haven’t exactly been model citizens these past few years.
Plus it acts this way with the blessing of so-called liberal democracies so that we must confront the absolute hypocrisy by voicing our criticism.
> Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
There are plenty of dual citizens that would proudly admit that their first loyalty is to Israel.
Other examples from the document use the term "Jews as a people", whereas this example seems to apply to accusing any individual.
Although perhaps a generous interpretation of the example, is that it excludes Israeli dual citizens, because Israel would be one of "their own nations"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_loyalty#Jewish_Believers
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/us/politics/jews-disloyal...
In general, you should be wary of "forms of antisemitism" (or similar "forms of x-ism/x-phobia/etc"). Such things usually consists of the defensible but vacuous notion that "doing X in an antisemetic way is antisemetic", while attempting to imply that doing X is antisemetic in general, regardless how it's done, or at the least that doing X is suspect. But the only proof that has been provided in such cases is that X has ocassionally been done in an antisemetic way, which you could say for just about anything. Since X in these cases is not per se anti semetic, it is more helpful to identify what antisemetic thing has often been done alongside it, and be on the lookout for that, instead of for X.
You specified that. The excerpt did not.
I admit the phrasing of the excerpt does look vague out of context, but it is about the collective of Jewish people. That is suggested by the excerpt saying "Jewish citizens" rather than "a Jewish citizen". It should also become more clear if you click through to the original and see all the other examples are about the Jewish people as a collective too. So yes, this text is specifically about the "because of" even if the excerpt doesn't make that explicit. It is not saying that any accusation of disloyalty is inherently antisemitism. For example, if a Jewish American citizen was arrested with real evidence of them being an Israeli spy, there would not be a serious discussion of whether the arrest was an act of antisemitism.
This is a pointless concern because "the excerpt" has no motivations behind it that were imbued by its author. The only reason it exists as an excerpt is that someone pulled it out of its original context. Either go to the source and read it in context to get a better idea of the motivations of the full text or attribute the motivations to the person who decided to excerpt that specific text.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C3%...
This is legitimately debatable. If your allegiance is first to a foreign state, in my view, you should have to relinquish your American citizenship.
Hence debatable.
Let me escalate: I think such a bill would find bipartisan support. Right now might be a good time to attempt it.
I hate the idea of revoking citizenship. But a question about swearing, on naturalisation, that your supreme allegiance is to America should be incredibly popular to secure.
I know more born citizens with a second nationality than naturalised ones who gave up their first.
And despite the difficulty of revoking US citizenship, the rate of revocations has increased over the last decade or two. If there was such a simple way to toss out that old rag, I'm sure there would be many more (and a little less tax revenue).
So I'm afraid* the USA is much more transactional than you think, at least regarding citizenship.
*I must admit this is sarcasm. Thank god the US is transactional rather than so stubbornly patriotic about citizenship.
Also, to be pedantic, you don’t have to have citizenship of a foreign country in order to have a greater allegiance to it.
The behavior of the christian conservative cult is a bit more than a pedantic detail at this point. Why is trying to get Israel into a conflict to get Jesus to come and accelerate the end of all jews on Earth not antisemitism? I don't see wanting to use the Jew for cockfighting making it to the State Department's summary of antisemitism.
Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness
In terms of what dictates your action, true allegiance is more significant: it is possible to really love somebody and not do something for their sake, but if you really are a part of something then it’s not much of a choice.
Some people, culturally or temperamentally, have an allegiance to their family and do not care beyond that. Some feel allegiance to a community (whether defined religiously or geographically or elsewise). Some people feel allegiance to nothing. In the US specifically feeling belonging to one’s state I presume could be more powerful than belonging to the country. It is not always or not everywhere that people feel a strong allegiance to a country, even if they always lived in one and never thought of moving.
Among people who do feel country allegiance, I would imagine it is rare to feel belonging to two different countries with a similar force. Perhaps those people do exist (e.g., someone who mostly lived in country A but was born to immigrants from country B and also spent a lot of time in country B), and then it would be mighty unfair if they had to pick one, but people I know can usually classify one citizenship as “convenience” and another one as “true”.
Comprehensively assessing true allegiances (or lack thereof) of a prospective citizen is fraught, but as phrased the question does not actually require that. For 99.9% of people, “do you feel allegiance first to a foreign state?” is pretty unobtrusive and has a clear answer. The main caveat is, of course, that those for whom the answer is positive will almost certainly just lie.
In case using tangentially related quotes is considered smarter than original thought, I looked one up too and I raise you Orson Scott Card:
“Every person is defined by the communities she belongs to and the ones she doesn’t belong to… a person who really believes she doesn’t belong to any community at all invariably kills herself, either by killing her body or by giving up her identity and going mad.”
I have one or two friends in that situations, and they want to do that. But it also cost a $2,350 fee to give up your US of A citizenship.
And, frankly, while this is most prominent with Islam, that religions describe their goal to be a single state and trying to be a single state is the norm, not the exception. Christianity is the exception here that does not want to have state power (even though that rule screams "compromise with the Roman emperor", and hasn't exactly been followed very well once Christians were well established)
So no more muslims allowed in the US then? In fact no religion allowed except Christianity or revering the US directly somehow?
However, I disagree with your conception of Islam as a state, even if it was explained to you by Muslims. The strongest argument I can build from your statements is that, according to the reference to the end of the Sunni Caliphate in 1923,
p1) only Sunnis are Muslims, and
p2) the Caliphate is unique, and
p3) the Sunni Caliphate of 1923 is the original one, thus
c) it was the state of Islam.
We can disprove all of these premises. p1) is obvious, there are more Muslim religions than just Sunnis. The earliest schism was the Sunni-Shiites split, happening immediately after the first prophet's death.
About p2), while I'm fuzzy on the details, I'm pretty sure that between the 900s and the 1900s there were at least 3 major, parallel Caliphates and also a bunch of smaller Caliphates. Geographically they were even sometimes overlapping. It might be interesting that the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire (the one in question) was a Hanafist (a Sunni splinter group) Caliphate.
On p3), the Sunni caliphate of 1923 was reestablished after a 300 year "hiatus" by the Ottoman Emperor to lay claim on Crimea. It had no representation besides a leader, the Sultan. Before the dissolution of the major Sunni Caliphate in the 1500s it relocated several times, from today's Syria to today's Iraq, to then and now Egypt. Thus we can say that the Caliphate had no continuous existence. We can furthermore say that the time the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was the Caliph, it was because it was a diplomatic ploy of the secular power of the Ottoman Empire.
Therefore, c) must be wrong. There are more Muslims than Sunnis, the Sunni Caliphate wasn't unique, and the Caliphate that ended in 1923 was not the original one.
A less philosophical counter-argument could be the vigorous infighting between different Muslim groups we see today. I'm curious how the war on Iran changes that, if at all.
... every group of every monotheistic religion says and believes they're the only "true" group, their group is the only valid group, and the entirety of that religion. Islamic dogma states very clearly, and every muslim will repeat it, that there is "only one islam".
This despite the fact that what you say is correct. There's 100s, minimum, of different versions of islam.
Your idea, that history is clear proof to the contrary ... well history is clear proof that there is no god and therefore no valid religion. In the case of islam, one might point out that the central promise of islam as a religion is that muslims will win militarily, because god will intervene directly (but "of course" what is currently happening in Iran proves they are wrong and every other group of muslims is right - this is the sort of argument you're up against). The fact that any caliphate fell at all is a pretty damn obvious contradiction to the entire religion.
Frankly, I must say, I like the "goal" of Christians and Jews a whole lot better.
I'm sure this definition is going to be applied to Zionist organizations that do this on a regular basis.
Plenty of dual citizens that are not Israeli citizens and would admit the same thing, but we don't go around throwing such accusations at them.
> this example seems to apply to accusing any individual.
Does it? It would be accusing the individual just because they are part of a certain group.
Simply not true. There is plenty of rhetoric about immigrants (even 2nd gen+) in Western countries being accused of being disloyal to their Western citizenship in favor of their ethnic origin countries. Chinese, Indians, Middle Easterners, Latin Americans etc are all accused of this; see the recent riots in LA for a very recent example. Yet this insinuation is made illegal only with respect to one country only for whatever reason.
It really isn't. Where did you get that information?
It's really hard to keep up.
The fallacy here is thinking Judaism and Zionism are related. They're not at all. I would wager most Jews worldwide are not Zionists. What Zionism is is the belief that Jews are entitled to a Jewish Ethnostate and they may create that state through violence and colonialism.
Trump and his friends are fascists (corporatism, corruption, strongman rule, us vs them with human rights abuses vs the "them", etc).
And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends.
The bypassing of the first amendment by pressuring social media companies to self-censor.
And the weaponisation of the legal system to take out a political opponent.
I think your description far more accurately describes the Democrats than the Republicans.
I'm not going to fact check that because it's probably wrong, but regardless, it doesn't matter.
Trump literally appointed a billionaire to be a minister of his, after said billionaire spent hundreds of millions on his campaign. Same billionaire also has government contracts, was in charge of "optimising" government spending. Oh and he runs a social media with blatant censorship. Trump had a coronation event where billionaires had to donate big sums of money to be able to attend. He launched shitcoins and collectibles and a fucking mobile phone.
Nothing any recent politician in any western country has done comes even close to this level of brazen corruption. Hell, well known corrupt autocrats like Putin are more delicate in public about their corruption.
> And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends
Like preventing HIV from being transmitted to babies in Africa? Darn Democratic HIV infected babies!
Please share evidence. Links to X of people simply stating the same thing does not count as evidence.
> The bypassing of the first amendment by pressuring social media companies to self-censor.
The platforms never claimed to be coerced, the platforms themselves said in court filings they were not coerced, SCOTUS determined they were not coerced.
The actual way this played out was that random crybabies on the Internet were sad their posts were moderated, so they complained to the courts that the government pressured the platforms. The platforms responded "no, we did that because you broke our ToS."
Here's Twitter's own lawyer in their legal filing on the matter:
> Such requests to do more to stop the spread of false or misleading COVID-19 information, untethered to any specific threat or requirement to take any specific action against plaintiffs is permissible persuasion, and not state action... as [SCOTUS] previously held, government actors are free to urge private parties to take certain actions or criticize others without giving rise to state action. The evidence provided does not support a plausible inference of state action because they suggest neither the degree of deep public, private entwinement necessary for joint action, nor the kind of threatened sanction necessary for coercion.
And here are Zuckerberg's own words:
> Ultimately it was our decision whether or not to take content down and we own our decisions.
Both platforms receive millions of government requests per year, the vast majority of which (from the US government) they are free to decline and frequently do decline.
> And the weaponisation of the legal system to take out a political opponent.
The entire purpose of a legal system is to "take out" criminals. Do you think running for office somehow gives someone criminal immunity? That has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life, and I've heard some astoundingly stupid ones!
They probably shouldn't do that and should just say fascist.
Absolutely zero reasons to give the current US government the benefit of the doubt
I think citizens is meant to mean “American citizens” as opposed to Jewish people that are citizens of other countries. It seems intended to prevent people saying Jewish people cannot be loyal to America, though I agree the wording is clumsy.
> Contemporary examples of antisemitism ... could, taking into account the overall context, include...:
Context is important. The examples are not true in all cases, but rather context dependent.
Accusing Jewish citizens of your country of being more loyal to Israel than their country simply because they're Jewish? Antisemitic.
Accusing a specific Jewish citizen that has said they are more loyal to Israel? Not antisemitic.
> Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor
> Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
> Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
...
Many of the examples make sense, but these four above are absurd.
(It's usually difficult to decisively prove that someone is applying a double standard, but I think here we're assuming that was somehow firmly established.)
But I could have double standards for all type of countries! I tend to hold the US at a higher standard than most countries for almost anything, and I think everyone holds Germany to a much higher standards with respect to minority rights (particularly, Jews) than other countries.
I think people overindex on Israel as "the only Jewish state", and less as "just another country". I wish we could entirely separate the identity of the Jewish people and the state of Israel at least in the discourse. It would make everything healthier.
While I think there's quite a lot of antisemitism out there, I find it questionable trying to deduce antisemitism. Explicitly expressed antisemitism itself is something else. I also find it very questionable to redefine the term that it includes deductions.
I draw comparisons to Roman Empire, would that please them better? Because Roman Empire also had racist expansionist state policies.
It almost always targeted at the tribal Anglo, Celtic or Germanic peoples. And in these circumstances it was really an insult at their style of government rather than their ethnic identity.
Everything from Tiktok bans to banning social media for teens. Who's going to fight US wars if your canon fodder witnessed Israel's inhumane behaviour as teens growing up. Nothing todo with China.
It's a national security threat alright.
And secondly why would US government target only anti-semits, will they check for anti-white racism, African-American racism, anti native-American racism, homophobia etc. This is a mess of a policy. And Trump is openly homophobic and anti-LGBTQ+, what that should tell us?
Abraham Lincoln said: "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
This is absolutely not true.
There isn't a single country in the world with absolute freedom of speech to begin with. And even if we take the very permissive freedom of speech of the US, it is matched by only very few countries, even in the west.
As a simple example, here's a map of the countries where it's at least an offence to insult the head of state: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Lese-maj...
If such a ruling was later appealed and eventually overturned, then of course that would not count. But a judge ruling on a case is technically the only way something can be considered provably "illegal" in the US.
I realize that you want to believe there are certain inalienable rights that somehow no longer exist, but I do not believe that to be the case. The courts exist for a reason, and just because people are sometimes arrested or charged with things that are not actually legal, that doesn't mean it won't later get thrown out in court, and it doesn't mean that your rights have disappeared.
Even if all of that did happen, such a case would most likely be appealed to the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional.
I don't know that it's specifically required for a visitor visa, but 'Good Moral Character' is required for naturalization in the US. Activity on social media is probably an indication of moral character, so it's not unreasonable to check social media before issuing visas that have a path towards citizenship. Student visas may technically be visitor visas, but there's a clear path F-1 -> OPT -> H-1B -> EB-2 or EB-3; if you're going to check on moral character at the end of all that, you may as well check at the beginning too.
What constitutes good moral character might not be a great question for a government to decide. There is certainly potential and precident of the government using good moral character as a proxy for discrimination that has nothing to do with morality.
Just a bundle of mixed messages and doublethink to allow the right kind of hate.
Genuinely, have people been living in Bikini Bottom? I'm so tired of this cognitive dissonance, not wanting to face the reality. As tired as I am of these developments themselves, really. I'm too tired to still be nice. I thought people here were bright.
When you have two parties in control, and they are both staunchly pro-capital, anti-worker parties, one party will push conservative and the other will ensure "nothing fundamentally changes".
Obama, Biden, Bush, and Clinton all had parts to play in empowering the executive, normalizing political violence, demonizing and silencing the left (the actual left -- socialists, workers parties, anarchists, etc.), and ramping up the militarization of the police.
This isn't some sudden moment, it might be the first time it's affected people you know, but this has been happening for awhile now.
I want more people out here who are willing to vote (or withold their vote) for a candidate based on the policy positions. This "Vote Blue No Matter Who" (or whatever the Republican equivalent is) mindset leads to candidates who don't have to hold coherent positions or perform their duties. They simply need to not be the other guy.
While being "not the other guy" they will get courted by capital interests, because they need that money to run their campaigns. It's really not hard to connect the dots between these politicians and the donors who buy them and mysteriously get policies that make regulatory capture and capital concentration easier. It's not even conspiratorial -- it's pretty much out in the open these days.
I'm so tired of hearing, "But not the democrats" or "but not the republicans" -- my friends, stop treating the people you vote for like part of your identity. Expect more from the people who represent you, be harshly critical of your own party to help it grow.
Not sure it’s gonna happen time though.
In 1985, France launched a terrorist attack against a protest in New Zealand.
It’s always been authoritarian for those that don’t look right
America also made efforts to recognize that those events counted as screwups and failures of their own value systems, and struggled against the forces that allowed such situations to happen.
This isn’t to say they succeeded, or that these situations wouldn’t happen again.
Its to say that theres a difference between pushing against the current, and flowing with it.
A member of Spirit Lake Nation was elected to North Dakota’s legislature for the first time last fall thanks to a redistricting lawsuit filed by Jackson-Street’s tribe, alongside the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. The suit claimed that the districts drawn by North Dakota in 2021 violated the Voting Rights Act, and the tribes’ initial success in court triggered a new map and increased representation in 2024.
But last month, a federal appeals court tossed out their victory and declared that only the federal government can sue over violations of the Voting Rights Act, a devastating blow to the ability of these tribes—and others in the region—to seek legal recourse.
* https://boltsmag.org/threats-to-voting-rights-act-section-2/
There are numerous other examples but an increased inability to complain about unfair and discrimmanatory voting practices highlights the present direction of 'progress'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
They were fanatical and willing to fight to the last man.
That should've always been the norm, yet unfortunately it isn't.
Just like Turkey huh? Love that America is still called the “land of the free”
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/3/20/turkiye-detains...
If I was a non-US person, who previously wanted to visit or move the US -- as a student, industry engineer/scientist, academic researcher, teacher, doctor/nurse, investor/founder, conference attendee, or tourist -- recent news events would've already had me put that wish on hold, indefinitely.
Even though those all are people that the US wants coming, they are being discouraged.
So, who has the US already started missing out on, what are the situations of people who are still coming, and how soon will even they stop?
The stance of the US on illegal inmigration has always been clear, and the process for requesting a B1B2 visa is like a rite of entry where it is made even clearer (interviews, seriousness). My father explained it to me when I was young, I must have thought the process was a bit too harsh, "going to their country is like going to somebody else's home, you need to follow their rules, and it's a privilege not a right, to enter".
From what I read, the rules haven't changed, rather they are being enforced. My perspective as an outsider is that the people that complain are mostly leftist extremist from one of the most left leaning and inmigrant heavy states (CA).
I know a lot of people from my country that consider breaking rules and laws as part of natural life and they see visa rules as some other rule to be broken, lots of people that overstay visitor and business visas to work and live in the states or other countries.
I see these changes in enforcement as positive to me, as they do not restrict me in any way except in false positives, as I was already complying with the law and my visa terms. If anything, I am benefitted, as the benefits that are given to law abiding people are becoming exclusive to those that abide the law, instead of also those that disregard it.
It reminds me of this scene from mad men
The bootlicker ethos thoroughly explained
I think TZubiri was speaking narrowly, of specific rules. And of their personal general law-abiding view, which one can respect.
I think they weren't speaking more broadly, of all the rules, conditions, and actions that currently apply to immigrants.
For example, I imagine they'd be surprised if, obeying all the rules, as far as they knew, they were suddenly grabbed off the street. Would they feel wronged? I don't think they're addressing that in the narrow comments here.
Regarding the part about thinking of themself as a guest, it's unclear at what point they have (in their view) earned additional rights -- by following rules, and contributing to US society -- and can start to think of it as their home, with additional rights and responsibilities, rather than as still only a guest.
Of course, if someone were framing an issue disingenuously, that might rate strong terms, but I'm trying to follow HN guidelines here, of trying to use the best interpretation of what someone said.
It is strong but I thought merited by Tzubiri’s glee at the imposition of more stringent immigration process
I’m also an immigrant and was able to follow through the long process to immigrate to the US
I quote from Tzubiri gp comment:
> The stance of the US on illegal inmigration has always been clear
Obviously not true - as proven by the fact that millions of illegals immigrants are currently employed in the US, pay taxes, can buy homes, have drivers licenses
> From what I read, the rules haven't changed, rather they are being enforced. My perspective as an outsider is that the people that complain are mostly leftist extremist from one of the most left leaning and inmigrant heavy states (CA).
Even president Trump acknowledged the dependence of US businesses on illegal immigrant labor when calling of ICE raids on farms. The most anti-California president elected not to enforce the rules they swore to follow.
> I see these changes in enforcement as positive to me, as they do not restrict me in any way except in false positives, as I was already complying with the law and my visa terms.
The US visa system makes people jump through arbitrary hoops just to stem the flow of foreigners.
Immigrants that follow the rules then come to believe that instead the system accurately measures worthiness
Why are EB3 wait times for India 10+ years but other countries 2 years?
Why did the US cancel the visas of Haiti and Venezuelan workers thus turning them into illegal immigrants overnight
Why were Cuban immigrants granted special status ?
Why are Cubans banned from US visas ?
The bootlicker is because Tzubiri could do everything by the book and still have their country be banned - they don’t know how additional enforcement will affect them or their loved one’s
I think that's a nice Mad Men scene in some ways. But we can agree that the writer used weak, stoned, strawman hippie characters for dramatic effect, so that Don Draper could be cool and reinforce the character. The closing line was especially smooth, and fit (and burned).
That scene expresses how you feel, and that's one entertaining way to communicate it, and that's fine.
But I hope we all agree that the scene doesn't constitute competent debate of the merits of feeling that way?
And false positives based on random things such as tattoos resulting in getting shipped to a concentration camp, with no due process, are positive to you?
I think economic freedom is a powerful motivator. Unlocking a social media account is hardly a deterrent.
These instructions are symptoms that show that the institutional fitness is degraded.
Good planning would be to come to America, take advantage of the increase in pay or opportunity, and several years later, leave once the inevitable co-morbidities become too much.
Sounds like an amazing place if you're healthy and able to work, the two things that are not guaranteed day-to-day, and will inevitably decline with age.
> Unlocking a social media account is hardly a deterrent.
I'm always reading on HN that America is inherently destined to out-innovate China because of "Democracy" and "Free Speech" - but here we are, with first amendment rights being chilled[1] in blatant ways. I wonder how those HNers see the future of American innovation.
1. Historically, the American government has always been hands-off with the KKK and American Nazis because of their 1A rights. Rights that don't seem to extend to vocal brown university students criticizing a foreign government.
In Europe, freelance rates differ from hourly employee pay by a factor of 2-3. As an employee, it's pretty difficult for a company (except small companies, which are exempt) to get rid of you, and the common approach is that they just offer you a relatively high severance payment.
So all things considered, I would think being an employee in the US is pretty similar to being a freelancer in Europe. Pay-wise and security wise. The major difference is that you have to find clients. Realistically multiple, due to "fake freelancing" regulations.
> jumping through the visa application hoops
I wouldn't say indefinitely but it did indeed put a dent after that 2 German tourists being detained for a week. I even got a US flight ticket (for tourism) as a gift from my mom since I had told her I want to visit SV but that one got on hold too.
I don't consider myself exceptionally competent or talented so I'm not sure you're missing out on much tho. At least big companies, probably not much. Top of the top talents are probably not deterred and big companies probably have framework to mitigate the turbulence
The availability of ridiculous amounts of investment cash is a good motivator. Startups start in America because American investors are willing to throw billions at the wall just to see if something will stick or not. Try that in Europe and you'll never get anywhere. The same also used to apply for scientific grants, and if you can find a corporate sponsor it probably still applies.
Higher wages are also a factor. More than one skilled programmer I know have considered working themselves "half to death" for a few years to build up wealth in the USA, and then returning home to comfortably spend that wealth.
Plus, despite everything else, the USA has some excellent facilities for higher education. If you want your kids to have opportunities in life and have the money to afford the ridiculously high fees, American educational facilities are very attractive.
Academics looking for the edge of innovation are well suited in many American institutions. News of cuts and changes to the US geographical service and weather service hit the world like a truck because those are areas that the US (and perhaps Russia) excels in, and everyone else has been catching up or cooperating with American programmes.
Don't forget: millions of people have moved to the US illegally, facing risk of deportation and long jail times, being separated from their families. Altering the privacy settings on their Facebook accounts is the least of their worries. Of course, illegal immigrants can't give a rat's ass about the legal requirements to enter the country anyway, but their sheer number shows how much so many people are willing to risk just to partake in US society, even if it's just for manual labour. Plus, that weird thing you guys do where people born within your borders automatically get citizenship is a nice way to ensure somewhat of a nice future for people looking to start a family.
As a tourist, though, things do seem to have shifted. The people coming to America to improve their lives will probably be a lot more persistent in following their dreams compared to the people coming in for leisure, especially when countries like Canada are just as far away. I myself have wanted to save up to see things like Disneyland and Cape Canaveral, but my plans have been on hold ever since the Trump election and I don't think I'll be reconsidering any time soon. From what I've heard in the news from travel agencies, I'm not alone, and my country is one of the more tolerant European countries when it comes to American bullshit.
If you're from a wealthy place like Europe or Canada: The United States is still far richer, bigger market, and more risk-encouraging than your homeland. Not everybody will want to move from those places, but I've seen first-hand how many ambitious people will. The ambitious culture and opportunity can't be overstated, and the ability to create a better life in a far more efficient country that rewards your efforts.
If you're from a poor place like Latin America: Almost anywhere in the United States is still better quality-of-life, better pay, etc., plenty of reasons to move.
From my sample size, the only people discouraged by this are political agitators who take up valuable spots at our universities, and contribute ~nothing to our economy anyways. Almost every immigrant I know supports these actions.
> Social media are interactive technologies that facilitate the creation, sharing and aggregation of content (such as ideas, interests, and other forms of expression) amongst virtual communities and networks.
Forums satisfy all of these requirements. The key factor is not what kind of content users can post but that users can post, and more importantly that they post with the primary intention of interacting with other users. This covers Hacker News and other forums but excludes guest books and contact forms.
There is a distinct experience and ecosystem that arises from those types of sites that we all recognize, which didn't exist in the same way before the advent of social media sites. And it warrants discussion. When you try to say "actually, technically, ALL human communication is social media!" and won't let it go, you derail a conversation in a way that benefits nobody and is functionally (if not literally at this point) untrue for anyone who's experienced the internet over the last 20 years.
TikTok, IG Reels, and YouTube don't depend on a social graph at all
> There is a distinct experience and ecosystem that arises from those types of sites that we all recognize, which didn't exist in the same way before the advent of social media sites. And it warrants discussion.
No that's the intellectual trap that allows you to use different standards to judge the two types of social networks. HN, Reddit, and Facebook all suffer from the same types of social problems. Bots, astroturfers, growth hackers, zealots who spread exaggerated or fake information to further their cause, conspiracy ideation reinforced by the network, etc. To classify these networks separately is to be blind to how similar they all are.
The entire premise of these platforms is how many followers / subscribers you have. This controls how you interact with the algorithm and whether you get promoted, etc. They have incredibly complex and nuanced social graphs that govern everything that happens on those sites.
> No that's the intellectual trap that allows you to use different standards to judge the two types of social networks
Disagee. Meta-discussion of users at the platform scale, UIs that are so algorithmically tailored that I often can't find the same information as another user even if I wanted, and re-enforcement loops designed to alter the website to maximize engagement over all else are among the things that make these sites distinct. You're being obtuse because you have a foregone conclusion you want to reach. The social problems I'm discussing are unique to those platforms.
> Bots, astroturfers, growth hackers, zealots who spread exaggerated or fake information to further their cause, conspiracy ideation reinforced by the network, etc. To classify these networks separately is to be blind to how similar they all are.
The problems you listed here are possible by definition on every website that exists. None of these problems are what make a website social media or not. Hell, those problems exist in traditional broadcast media.
The key factor is that a third party has an algorithm that decides what you gets on your feed, based on the content. This is used to feed you ads or occasionally steer the election of the most powerful democracy.
> The key factor is that a third party has an algorithm that decides what you gets on your feed, based on the content.
You are describing Hacker News.
You are describing Reddit.
Reddit and 4chan are different from Facebook and Instagram, but they are still social media.
Wikipedia:
> Social media are interactive technologies that facilitate the creation, sharing and aggregation of content (such as ideas, interests, and other forms of expression) amongst virtual communities and networks.
The categorization you’re relying on dates back to the early 2010s; it equates social media with Facebook-style platforms centered on a main feed, profiles, connections, messaging, and other ancillary functionality. This was 15 years ago; YouTube doesn’t have a messaging system anymore, but you would probably still consider it to be social media. Most of the reels you see on Instagram are not from accounts that you follow, and hardly anyone uses their real name to post there, so by your definition it would not qualify as social media, but it plainly is.
I’m familiar with the attitude because I see it all over on 4chan, Reddit, and Hacker News. Someone who posts here claiming they don’t use social media is like someone claiming to be a vegan who eats beef; it’s a clout thing among the strange anti-social subcultures that developed on these platforms used to indicate that the user doesn’t use platforms that involve something as shallow as talking about his personal life.
"Sure I exaggerated the privacy risk and hyperbolized my experience but it's because I'm passionate about privacy! I'm not like those losers on Facebook spreading fake news."
They're doing the exact same thing. Pseudonymous and anonymous social networks are also social networks and suffer from the same problems of discourse. The smug "we're not like the normies" attitude often makes this even worse than mainstream social networks, not better.
I’ve always got the sense that this perception was a big reason why Redditors seem to hate Instagram so much. The algorithm does occasionally do some unpleasant things, but 90% of the time it’s great. When I read about people comparing their lives to others and becoming depressed I can’t help but feel like the app might not be the problem.
What is social about what we're doing here ? I haven't even read your username, I dont care about it, I won't remember you tomorrow, there's nothing social about that, or else we should consider that every single BBS ever was "social" and the word doesn't mean shit anymore
I hope we can finally let all that propaganda of 'freedom' and 'free speech' go to rest now.
Today - visa interviews, tomorrow - citizens in the US.
Went to a No Kings rally? Ooops, -2000 points, now you can’t board a plane.
And now I can’t get a visa :(
(The way your credit score is designed is nether common nor normal outside of the US. And is a strange concept to anyone else as well. It's not much off an social score for the poor as it looks from the outside)
Maybe, but it's a bit like extending the concept of a grenade to a nuclear bomb. The amount of the 'concept' applied matters substantially.
DHS, ICE, ... all doing whatever they are told from the new "above the law".
The worst part is this has the possibility to spread to other countries (that the US can twist the arm of) because they want to extend their policies further.
Based on the way Americans vote, I don't think that hospitality is there for the majority of Americans. I know the way the American system of politics has shifted to a binary choice doesn't leave much room for nuance when it comes to specific policies, but when Americans were faced with a choice between a racist, misogynist, fraudulent, insurrectionist sex offender and anyone else, they showed their values.
Plus, the country's leader announced he was considering invading a close ally, that kind of threat cannot be ignored either, though it's only one of the more recent threats to world peace that only happens to hit close to home for me. I'm sure people in the Middle East and Central or South America will have heard this kind of talk before.
In the same vein, I hope people judge my country for the fact that right extremists that have held a significant amount of power for years now. There are hospitable, kind people in every street in every town, but I won't pretend the average person will be like that; voter demographics have definitely been a continuous source of disappointment for me. Perhaps that's one of the downsides of democracy: the people of a country show their true colours quite publicly, and can't hide behind "that's just what the regime thinks".
You're right about the beauty, though. America is a very pretty place.
Don't forget serial cheater with multiple divorces (supposedly the choice of the religious people of "family values"), blatantly corrupt out in public, borderline senile (seriously, listen to the guy speak for more than a minute, it's barely coherent), mocking disabled people, etc etc etc.
How that person is even seriously taken as a candidate, let alone actually winning anything, is genuinely beyond me. Especially for a second term after multiple convictions inbetween.
Being all "jesus christ is my savior" has nothing to do with actual morals, just power.
Morale has declined too, though.
One of most famous speeches in U.S. history talks about a government that is “of the people, by the people, for the people.” If the State behaves in a certain way, it is of the people. Many people who cast their vote for the current regime are perfectly cordial in face-to-face interactions; but nonetheless they gave their consent to these policies. There is a deeply divided plurality, of course, but I’d rather limit my visits to the U.S. regardless of its natural beauties or the hospitality of its populace, be it real or superficial. Were I a student from outside the U.S., forget it, I would never consider it a safe option for post-secondary education. The absolute risk of serious harm, I imagine, is low; but who needs this humiliation?
Yeah, the jury is still out on the second part of the claim.
The American government is waging economic war on us with the openly announced intention of annexing us. American pundits (and the idiot ambassador Trump sent us) tell us to downplay it, but the president keeps bringing it up!
I'm still working to cut more American goods and companies out of my life. I'm sorry, but Americans are responsible for what their government does. If you wish to be forgiven, you must first stop doing what you say you're sorry for!
As a very run of the mill Australian, I would not feel safe crossing your border right now. The overreach, lack of transparency and documented instances of recent abuse put it at about the same risk as Russia or China. If border force is having a bad day, bad luck, you get fucked over with no recourse, no transparency. Too bad.
It is no surprise that tourism has plummeted.
There’s a high degree of variability there based on location, your English fluency, and skin color. I know people who’ve had very different experiences based on that - it’s why my white European friends never think twice about going on a backwoods camping trip but some from Africa or South America stopped. Even if most people are nice, the ⅓ or so set the tone for the entire trip.
UK is already almost as bad. But UKs political elite is maybe even more pro-Israel than USAs.
- https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-from-the-... - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-partners-unite-to-...
https://www.declassifieduk.org/bbc-chief-downplays-britains-...
The UK's media have also provided extremely slanted reporting.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/25/visitors-to-...
It's been genuinely shocking to see how many EU leaders are in lock step over this. Only Spain and Ireland have broken ranks and called Gaza what it is.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corb...
August 2022, after the invasion of Ukraine, calling for "peace" by stopping shipments of armaments to Ukraine, saying they won't solve anything. The useless communist party of France has the same rhetoric, as do the far right loonies here. Because letting Ukraine fall to the Russians will definitely get peace.
Anyone with that sort of opinion is either incredibly dumb, or paid by the Kremlin.
Labeling those with different views on Ukraine-Russia policy as putinists is the same phenomenon as Israel critics being labeled antisemites or pro-Hamas.
What peace deal was on the table for Ukraine in 2022? Surrender and let their population be brutalised by the Russians, their culture and language erased, their civilians and military tortured and raped? Great deal, I wonder why they didn't take it.
It has solved the immediate problem of limiting the Russian expanse and subsequently war crimes in Ukraine. It's literally the best that can be done right now, until Putin realises he can't win.
> Labeling those with different views on Ukraine-Russia policy as putinists is the same phenomenon as Israel critics being antisemites or pro-Palestine.
No, because both sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict both have good points and deficiencies. Both have a right to exist, and both have done terrible things to one another. There are nuances, and there can be a solution where both exist. But both need to take part of it.
In Ukraine, Russia is a genocidal regime invading its neighbour. Ukraine being forced to give up territory and concessions on army/NATO restrictions would just guarantee they'll be weaker for Russia to invade again in a few years. If you want peace, take it up with Putin. Preventing help getting to Ukraine to defend itself is serving Putin's interests and nothing more. The war stops the second Putin stops.
This is not why your comment was flagged.
> accept you have a problem
Don’t write like this and you will receive fewer downvotes/flags.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> strange moderation
The actions are not from site moderators; other users thought your comment violated one or more the guidelines so they flagged it.
Moderation of threads has been done the same way for years on HN. The guidelines have been in place and essentially the same for many years, and it's been the same people upholding them for a long time too.
Please read and observe the guidelines, particularly these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Stop going to the US. Is it pretty? There are way better places on earth. Is it fun? There are way funnier places ok earth. There's no reason to submit to all that degrading behavior.
Good riddance. Let the. Keep their decadent country to themselves until it crumbles.
Meanwhile, I recently received a survey from some industry association in the USA asking what it would take for me to return to travelling in the USA. Like asking a bunch of questions about accommodations, travel, flights, etc. Without even mentioning the obvious.
Do Americans not know how they are perceived in the rest of the world?
Note that in the pre-social media era, this particular bs would not be possible.
37% approve illegal deportations to El Salvador. Not a majority, but a shoking approval for literally illegal, both domestically and internationally, operations. General Trump disapproval is barely over 50%. These reflect a widespread rot in the culture, not just a rogue administration.
https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/17/americans-ha...
At the very least, the majority of Americans certainly condoned the current administration at the polling booth - or couch. The Trump campaign can't be accused of not being up-front with its agenda.
There are plenty of other countries to immigrate too, at this point many are probably better than the US. Stop bothering us and let us work our problems out.
Not that that exactly matters to this administration, who is happy to act first and let the courts figure it out never
This is how normalization of deviance works on a bureaucratic administrative legal scale. One administration, with just a mildly lackadaisical attitude about staying within the bounds of things like rights, laws, legality and so forth, stretches what's legally allowed or normal just a bit, here and there, only to be followed by another more or less reasonable administration that does it a bit more. Then however, you might get a less common but not extremely rare administration that simply doesn't give a tin shit about anything resembling legality insofar as it thinks it can get away with it, and all those previous deviations are aggressively pried into and expanded as much as possible.
This is why it's important to fight deviations of respect for individual legal rights and constitutional boundaries even when they're small, committed by administrations you otherwise largely respect. You simply don't know who will come along later, or how much political tendencies will change over time having been already given ever more free rein to do so illegally.
Then on the other hand, there is also that large subset of the population that, as long as a particular administration shares its ideological fixations, simply doesn't care about legality or deviations from constitutional responsibility.
On the contrary, they'll actively bark for their new leaders to break the rules as much as possible against anything they don't like. They're idiots for doing this of course, because it can very easily bite them right back in the ass later, but try explaining that when rational discourse goes down the drain in favor of dogmas.
Non-resident aliens abroad aren't generally considered to be protected by the First Amendment, so denying someone a visa before they enter the US based on speech may be Constitutionally ok.
Deporting people already in the US because of speech is a different matter.
> so denying someone a visa before they enter the US based on speech may be Constitutionally ok.
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Supreme Court hasn't said much, but in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez plurality opinion by Rehnquist held that the rights of "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment (written similarly) does not extend outside the United States to aliens abroad as they are not a "class of persons who are part of a national community or ... have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
> it refers to "the people of the United States" which would not include aliens abroad.
These are different:
- The people
- The people of the United States
- Citizens
If you are confused about this you can 1) Google to confirm, 2) read the constitution, not just the amendments, to see this actively play out, or 3) read the Federalist Papers, where it is stated more explicitly.
James Madison provides the rationale:
"Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage."
While aliens within the United States owe temporary obedience to its laws and thus enjoy protections under the Constitution, aliens abroad do not.
Again, see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez where the Supreme Court determined aliens abroad were found illegible for Fourth Amendment protection as they were not considered "the people."
I don't understand why so many people who hate the US to it's core want to live there. E.g., Ilhan Omar: "the US is one of the worst countries".
Also, as a foreigner, it doesn't really matter what rights you may or may not have when people at the border have broad power to reject your attempted entry. Unless you're willing to try a legal battle, you'll be forever marked as "refused entry" in the US government systems, which is one of the many flags you need to clear to even get a VISA. I wouldn't trust the country that deports legal immigrants or just plain citizens without due process to care much about your right to remain silent.
I think it's been pretty well-known that the US government will track your social media activity by any means it can anyway. Setting everything to public makes it easier for the courts (after all, no need to admit to secret spying when everything is set to public) but I think it'd be an illusion to think the government doesn't have access to this data anyway. Or perhaps this is just a grift so more private companies can start scraping social media as a business model around immigration control.
The most interesting change here is that they're targeting people criticizing Israel's ongoing genocide of Palestinians specifically.
But haven been through the system and being an American my whole life and understanding America, I would say no I didn’t see anything special about my education.
nothing particularly note worthy and in fact, I have a long list of criticisms. especially tenured professors, professors that don’t speak English very well, and then actually just horrible professors.
Curriculum wise, yes many universities can have fairly cutting edge curriculums but that’s not something we have a monopoly over.
And let’s not talk about the price.
Also, I had quite a few foreign exchange students that I’ve interacted with through throughout the years, whether at school or other places. And more often than not in the cs majors, I would say that they were ahead.
Sorry, I know there's still good people there too.
It will take many good administrations to get that trust back. Especially the tariff attacks on US allies basically told us anyone can be elected at any time and throw a wrench in global trade. The amount of decoupling that's started here is huge.
These things take time to materialise so it's not obvious yet. But once the EU has alternatives for things it needs the US for (eg big cloud) why ever switch back?
Also the "buy European" movement sprung up out of nowhere and grew massively.
Trump will hopefully be a blip but the waves will be felt for years to come.
For instance I don't have any current instagram, facebook, or tiktok account and my old accounts including the google ones I have used sporadically have always been using generated names[1] but there are a fair number of other people having my real name , how would the US government know I am not hiding by keeping one of those profiles private?
Bottom line: I will never apply for a US Visa and by losing all atractivity to foreign talents and only accept keeping its interbreed assholes this country is completely doomed.
[1] it is quite funny to have whole families from Iceland or Tanzania trying to connect to you because your has their last name.
Also, pleasantly surprised to see this not immediately flagged off the front page. Of late, the flagging has been particularly trigger happy.
Weird that people somehow are making more fuss about showing your social media to authorities than giving away your biometrics.
I'm afraid we're going into a weird timeline where authoritarian figures in power(not just government) are having immense amounts of data for people, and the technology to go through it without much effort. It's a good time(if it's not to late) for everyone who cares about their privacy to start getting as much as possible outside mainstream social media and centralized accounts(google etc)
>The US government has no right searching through it.
Well they just made it a right. What are rights anyway? Rights are not a natural construct, they're whatever the government decides. So if the government decides one thing, tomorrow it can decide another thing if it wants to.
It's not a US issue, every country you will go to can change their rights willy nilly based on the current boogie man: terrorists, COVID, Russia, Iran, right wing "extremists" etc
In the UK or Germany you can be fined, swatted or arrested for tweets and wrong think. Why? Because government made that a right.
I'm guessing you're a US citizen, because this isn't about the US. Many countries in the world are more or less puppies of the US government, it's not like we're living in an isolated world where the decisions of the US government don't apply to others because they're not US citizens. This is showing a general trend, which doesn't concern just visa applications.
I'm not and I never said it is, I was just saying it's a bit hypocritical for people to complain about governments wanting to see your social media before letting you in the country, while being OK with giving up your biometrics.
You might say you're also not OK with giving up your biometrics, and then I would say, well why are you going to places that do things you're not OK with? Just stay home or go to other places. Why complain about the politics of countries you're not a citizen of and can't vote? Their country, their rules, only their citizen can enact change.
And BTW, I'm OK with governments wanting to see your social media before letting you in. Where I live in EU, there's a lot of middle eastern "refugees" whose social media is full of support of terrorist orgs and calling for death to Israel. Why would you want to let such people in? Would you want those people living next to you? If they're that brazen and stupid to be so open about extremist beliefs on social media, they don't belong in our society and shouldn't have been let in the first place. Granted that won't stop all these extremists, but it will at least stop the really dumb ones.
I expect my elected government to prioritize the safety of its taxpayers over the privacy rights of foreigners and visitors.
Your freedom of speech ends when you're physically and practically disturbing other people's freedoms. Weird how people don't get that.
Inspecting visitor's social media doesn't break the constitution same as how inspecting their/your luggage at the airport doesn't. Border checks are a thing orthogonal to the constitution.
Employers will also Google you and judge you based on what you said on social media. If your profile is full of swastikas or other schizo shit, you probably won't see an offer. Why shouldn't countries do it? Do you want dangerous people let?
So no, that doesn't break the constitution.
Cruz stated similar to "I was taught at a young age that the bible says whoever helps Israel will be blessed by God and those that don't anger god".
Tucker, a Christian, asked where in the bible it said this as he had no recollection of such. Cruz didn't know.
Turns out it doesn't even say as such in the bible.
This is brainwashing at a very young age that has been going on for decades.
As with all things in the bible, it's meaning is subject to interpretation, and I won't attempt to argue for one interpretation vs another. Just putting it out there as some additional context.
Also, that verse is from the torah, not the christian bible ( new testament ). It is fundamentally meaningless to christianity as the verses in the quran are.
It's hilarious how people like cruz cherry-pick passages from the old testament. The torah also has quite interesting things to say about homosexuality (death penalty by stoning), slavery (legal) and women's rights (none). What's cruz's views on these topics.
Else it becomes impractical to travel securely!
I've hypothesized that for as much as I'll always resist it, authoritarianism is an inevitable, predictable result of social complexity and volatility, two factors that are unprecedentedly shaping humanity.
Elites just want it, lowbrow bureaucrats know no other way, and the ever divided plebs, unwilling or unable to actively engage in intelligent mitigation themselves, will either collectively touch their toes or wake up one day to a new and improved boardgame with very strict and uncomfortable rules.
Something many seem to slough off, is the extreme, manifold volatility underlying society, from environmental factors to technological, political, economic, social, epic crisis, etc, and even the remaining mysteries of the human id. All scarcely prepared for and recreationally sneezed at.
I don't see how it's not abundantly clear that as myriad people of influence scramble for their own brands of order, or a single one in this thinly veiled bedlam we call society, that severe constriction isn't imminent. Regardless of Red or Blue; Independent being inconceivable presumably for reasons of exceedingly advanced rationale.
I think an ephemeral golden age (for those who've been on the better scented end of the stick) is ending with an exponential tempo.
Grim but pragmatic.
Also, wouldn't this just incentivize desperate people to buy fake online accounts that were built over a long period just for this purpose?
infotainment•7mo ago
You are free to say whatever you like, as long as your words do not contradict Official Party Ideology.
nathanaldensr•7mo ago
frollogaston•7mo ago
fallingknife•7mo ago
nielsbot•7mo ago
Mountain_Skies•7mo ago
Would you be ok with that social media poster being granted entry into the country?
kennywinker•7mo ago
ilya_m•7mo ago
Do I trust the government to police opinions? No, especially when there's no accountability and appeals process.
Do I believe the overall benefits that harassment-free international travel brings to this country outweigh the costs of letting in some visitors whose views I disagree with? Yes.
frollogaston•7mo ago
vkou•7mo ago
skeledrew•7mo ago
mlindner•7mo ago
nielsbot•7mo ago
ImJamal•7mo ago
SoftTalker•7mo ago
All that said, nobody has a "right" to come to the USA to study. It's something we allow, for a lot of good reasons, but there are doubtless a small number of people that we would not want here.
impossiblefork•7mo ago
However, countries may, depending on their laws, choose to not let certain people in on conditions that would otherwise violate guarantees on freedom of speech etc.
However, you do have your constitutional rights at the border etc. There is an exception concerning searches.
kloop•7mo ago
There are a lot of times the government is limited even dealing with foreigners abroad (in legal theory anyways, ymmv in reality).
throw0101c•7mo ago
“There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.” ― Idi Amin
FabHK•7mo ago
But not everyone can just come to the US, and looking at what they've said is part of deciding whether they can.