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
“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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Jewish so I can’t speak authoritatively, but the Jews have a very long memory and the Holocaust was only 60-ish years ago. I can’t imagine the majority of Jews in the US would support fascist government surveillance.
That comment was in response to : "Or who knows, maybe they ban Trump critics or commies from entering the US." I was asking what trump critics or commies have to do with israel or "antisemitism".
> That being said, I don’t think this has anything to do with Israel, and everything to do with Trump trying to steal more power.
Right. A policy specifically tailored for israel has nothing to do with israel. The prime minister of israel asked the US government to attack US colleges for "antisemitism" because so many college students were protesting against israel's genocide against palestinians. I'm sure that has nothing to do with israel also.
> I’m not Jewish so I can’t speak authoritatively, but the Jews have a very long memory and the Holocaust was only 60-ish years ago.
What does this even mean? Also, do you think just randomly throwing in the "holocaust" is making an argument?
> I can’t imagine the majority of Jews in the US would support fascist government surveillance.
What?
I asked a simple question of why so many US politicians act like lackeys to israel. And every response so far has been awkward and obvious. Let me guess, you're next door neighbor is a holocaust survivor.
The Jews still pray prayers written during the Crusades asking for peace in the Middle East. In fact they still perform rituals every Sabbath that were established thousands of years ago. I think they probably remember being violently subjugated within living memory, subjugation which was explicitly enabled by government surveillance.
> Also, do you think just randomly throwing in the "holocaust" is making an argument?
You’re trying to portray this as some tenuously relevant event when it’s extremely relevant. I’m saying Jews probably don’t support Trump doing this, here’s why I think that, so don’t blame them.
> I asked a simple question of why so many US politicians act like lackeys to israel.
No, you’re very obviously trying to blame things you don’t like on minorities. Reminder that 70% of US Jews vote Democrat. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/u-s-jews-pol...
> Let me guess, you're next door neighbor is a holocaust survivor.
It’s actually “your”, not “you’re”. They aren’t Holocaust survivors, but they did have to request police escorts to attend synagogue after being harassed by white liberals wearing keffiyehs.
I'm not sure the DHS is protecting anyone other than the Trump Administration's narratives at this point.
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.
> 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...
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.
It’s always been authoritarian for those that don’t look right
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
I think economic freedom is a powerful motivator. Unlocking a social media account is hardly a deterrent.
Even in warzones people manage to find normalcy and feel like everything is O.K. no big deal. You can see this people in Kyiv having normal lives, just reminded of the war for some brief moment when a strike happens somewhere remote enough to be safe but close enough to hear. When the Syrian civil war started I was curious how is the day life going and I was always able to find just regular people having regular lives like a night out with their friends etc.
Anyway, I've said it before but once UK decided that they no longer like Europeans, it took a few years to implement the Brexit decision and after the implementation EU citizens could have chosen to stay in UK or even come to UK to acquire the right to stay in UK but many choose not to do that. IRRC half of the EU people left UK and people from the poorer EU countries didn't flock to UK unlike Brits believed(i.e. Romanians and Polish all want to move to UK, that's why we need to get out of EU). I know a lot of people who just moved out of UK after Brexit for no other reason than they had a choice and they choose not to bother with all this political BS and live and study somewhere where their existence isn't questioned all day long. UK is a nice country with amazing culture but France or Netherlands are not any worse and even the poorer countries are actually nice places, so it is not worth to be a political subject to stay in UK if you are able to find a job or school somewhere else in EU.
So I would expect slow degradation of US higher education where the best school will still receive similar people but Oxford, ETH, Sorbonne etc will start seeing higher concentration of talent. Then Universities that are still amazingly good but not as well known outside US (i.e. Duke, University of Pennsylvania etc.) will see reduction of talent.
If I'm travelling under a visa, and 100 people from my country broke their visa conditions, I want to show that I won't break my visa conditions. People breaking visa conditions, or in general promising to do one thing and then doing another, are not my allies and I don't want to protect them by giving them an alibi in the name of privacy.
Here you go sir, this is my social media account, lots of pictures from my country as you can see, if you find a picture in the US, you'll find it's for short periods of time and the purpose is in line with my assigned visa. Thank you for letting me in your country temporarily.
The more information given, the more likely there will be a false positive.
"You say you didn't visit the US but here's a picture of you in Vegas." "That's the Eiffel Tower. In Paris." "No, it's Las Vegas - I saw it last month. Entry rejected."
I hope we can finally let all that propaganda of 'freedom' and 'free speech' go to rest now.
infotainment•5h ago
You are free to say whatever you like, as long as your words do not contradict Official Party Ideology.
nathanaldensr•5h ago
frollogaston•4h ago
fallingknife•5h ago
nielsbot•4h ago
Mountain_Skies•4h ago
Would you be ok with that social media poster being granted entry into the country?
kennywinker•4h ago
ilya_m•4h 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•4h ago
vkou•2h ago
mlindner•4h ago
ImJamal•1h ago
SoftTalker•1h 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•4h 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•50m ago
There are a lot of times the government is limited even dealing with foreigners abroad (in legal theory anyways, ymmv in reality).
throw0101c•2h ago
“There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.” ― Idi Amin
FabHK•42m ago
But not everyone can just come to the US, and looking at what they've said is part of deciding whether they can.