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.
> 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"
The vast majority of American Jewish citizens are not dual US/Israeli citizens. Very roughly, there are about 1,000,000 Israelis living abroad worldwide and the US Jewish population is around 7,000,000.
> but we don't go around throwing such accusations at them
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.
> This insinuation really is only made to Jewish people
Certainly is news to japanese americans ( literally put in concentration camps ), chinese americans, german americans, mexican americans, arab americans, italian americans, catholics in general, indian americans, russian americans, etc.
> so of course they are more aligned with their country than ours, even if they have no direct ties to it whatsoever.
But there are plenty of jewish americans who are pro-israel. Such as jewish americans who joined the israeli military rather than american military.
It doesn't help that jewish americans were the main proponent to allowing dual citizenship in the US.
> This insinuation really is only made to Jewish people
This is untrue. It's untrue to such an extraordinary degree that it's hard to believe you're arguing in good faith.
Accusing people of being loyal to some other nation or cause is levied regularly against almost all peoples to some degree or other, particularly if the person holds any ancestral pride or accoutrements. Even just refusing to adapt to food customs is enough to arouse suspicions.
Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags. Various members of Trump's administration declared this a demonstration of "occupied" territories.
If you're Chinese in America you must never, ever, show an iota of association with your homeland -- or even just your grandparents home if you're 3rd generation -- or you will be ostracized and considered a deep agent. An Indian that has an Indian flag in their bio or the like is going to be frequently asked why they don't move back if they "love it so much".
Similarly, a frequent criticism of some Muslims is din wa dawla, which is a belief that religion and politics/the state are one. Indeed, if someone has religious beliefs that can go in conflict with the needs/goals of the state, there is a discord there that needs to be considered.
There are Americans who are more loyal to Israel than the US. Like, they will literally tell you this without an ounce of compunction or question (which is utterly verboten among virtually any other group. Similarly a US congressman wore his IDF uniform into congress, which is simply insane). On the flip side, there are many Jewish Americans who are deeply critical of Israel. Like does anyone think Bernie is a deep agent of Israel? Bernie, like much of Jewish America, is deeply critical of Israel.
Neither India nor China allow dual citizenship, so a US citizen of Indian or Chinese origin who argues in favor of one or the other at the expense of the US's strategic goals is absolutely suspect.
> Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags
Because LA Chicanos did not realize how inflammatory using the Mexican flag is in anti-government protests outside the California.
In CA, it's well understood it's used as an identity marker (though still exclusionary, as a growing portion of the Hispanic community in CA isn't Mexican anymore), but outside CA using another country's flag at the expense of the US absolutely is viewed as a severe faux pas.
>so a US citizen of Indian or Chinese origin who argues in favor of one or the other at the expense of the US's strategic goals is absolutely suspect.
To be completely clear, what you are saying is that a US citizen -- I have no idea what the relevance of foreign citizenship means, unless you're saying that everyone with a foreign citizenship is suspect -- of Indian or Chinese origin cannot have an opinion on anything. On foreign wars. On immigration levels or sources of intake. On government structure or laws or budgetary spending. Because literally anything can be cast by some hate monger as being at the "expense of the US's strategic goals".
Let's just be completely clear about your position here.
>but outside CA using another country's flag at the expense of the US
What does "at the expense" mean? People are protesting masked groups of thugs kidnapping people and renditioning them (illegally) to foreign gulags, and that is absolutely in the service of the US.
Though there have been a number of pro-Israel protests that are nothing but a sea of Israeli flags. Jim Jordan hilariously said "We fly the American flag in America", while he has a giant Israeli flag festooned outside his office. There is zero consistency about this "who gets to be proud of their heritage / fly a foreign flag" position beyond "who should be cowed and shut their dirty migrant faces".
> There is zero consistency about this "who gets to be proud of their heritage / fly a foreign flag" position beyond "who should be cowed and shut their dirty migrant faces".
Kids until they are 18 can be dual citizen of China and American, they just have to decide at 18 which one to renounce. Also, attractive female snow boarders are also allowed dual citizenship but those are exceptions.
Getting HK or Macao PR is almost impossible - you have a better shot getting Shanghai or Beijing hukou. It's also a grey area - dual nationality is "permitted", not "allowed", and this policy can easily be revoked given how unstable HKSAR and Macau's governments have become
As such, it is an edge case or rounding error - especially in the Chinese American community. With the amount of effort it takes to get HK citizenship, you may as well take Canadian or American citizenship and try to break Chinese nationality law by lying about not having American citizenship (but they are cracking down on this)
Get your point but Disagree. Antisemitism is singular and has a long history that is well documented. You can see clearly that it isn’t just another instance of racism or xenophobia, but something different. Nobody accuses AOC of secretly working for Mexican government. See the difference?
I'm clearly not disputing the existence of antisemitism (or that it is a widespread scourge), and it isn't some trump card in a discussion like this. Someone claimed that only Jews are accused of split loyalties and that is insanely untrue.
"Nobody accuses AOC of secretly working for Mexican government"
It would be an incredibly weird accusation given that her ancestry is Puerto Rican.
And FWIW, there is a credible observation that the US evangelical "death cult" right has a bizarre, self-sabotaging loyalty to Israel. This group is not remotely Jewish, but they -- again not Jews -- are the reason the US government is subservient and in the service of Israel. All because their mythology holds Israel as some end times revelations battleground or some other bizarrely ignorant, archaic belief.
> Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags
The invasion angle is simply entering a country without permission. Protesting against the laws of the country while holding the foreign flag adds to the poor optics but the root of the invading accusation is the people actually invading.
All racism has group specific aspects. Start curbing freedom of speech in this manner and soon you will have a list of thousands of things you are not allowed to say, at which point we can't say we have freedom of speech anymore.
> who have literally never been to Israel, have no family who have been there, and have no recent ancestry even in the area
But are somehow—without any apparent reason, given that nothing binds them to the country—in favor of Israel being allowed to continue their war of agression against pretty much everyone around.
Making laws against saying otherwise is disloyalty to America, though probably pushed more by antisemites trying to foment antisemitism than anyone else.
I find it ironic that the current administration wants to filter out students based on their negative views of Israel when the same administration has literal Nazis in their ranks. I think that the quoted definition/criteria is just a ploy to ban students from undesirable countries from entering the country.
Donald Trump has done this multiple times, saying that Jewish Americans who vote for Democrats are disloyal or traitors because he treats Israel better.
> whereas this example seems to apply to accusing any individual
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.
It's just convenient right now, not a part of ideology of protecting minorities. Consider how this is effectively a type of targeted affirmative action just a short time after all dei was the devil and had to be erased. If Israel does something the gov doesn't support, I expect all of this to go away.
> And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends.
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!
> the Dems campaign funds were 3 times the Republicans at the last election so the corporate donors were very much on their side.
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!
It's pretty simple, Trump hates Muslims more than he hates Jews ("Fine people on both sides", Kanye & Feuntes, cancelling funding for domestic anti-semitism programs...). This is the Muslim ban under a different guise.
When people say that Trump is a Nazi, they mean in the fascist "enemy from within" type of way. As in they're using Nazi as a drop-in for fascist because Nazi Germany was the most popular fascist nation that everyone knows.
They probably shouldn't do that and should just say fascist.
Yes I guess nazis were the "most popular fascist nation".
Interestingly there were alot of themes in nazi ideology that could almost be considered left-wing.
They believed in the dignity of the German working class man for example and that the Jewish people represented big business and were a corruption on society etc.
Indeed. Their socialist program was left-wing... But it was socialism only for the people they considered actually people. That'd be the key difference between Nazi beliefs and any modern democratic socialism.
New-Left/Progressives are influenced by Carl Schmitt and his views on power that the Right also draws from. It's one of the key distinctions from Liberals who reject him entirely.
A common misconception. Hitler was a big supporter of creating Israel (which didn't exist at the time) too. Why? Because the point of Israel was to make the Jews go far away from Europe, where Hitler didn't want them to be.
So ummm..are you saying Trump is defending the Jewish state so that eventually all the Jewish people in the US can be moved there? Trying to understand your logic here...
I don't think Trump personally is anti-semetic. But it's pretty common for right-wingers, even neo-Nazis, to support Israel because of the argument "The Jews get to have a state to call their home, why not Whites?"
>But it's pretty common for right-wingers, even neo-Nazis, to support Israel because of the argument "The Jews get to have a state to call their home, why not Whites?"
It really isn't. Where did you get that information?
Believe it or not, yes. It's specified above but yes, Adolf Hitler was a Zionist.
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.
Who said neo Nazis today are defined by an agreement from the 1930s? Hitler and Nazi Germany made many agreements. They also had one with Russia, and we all know how that went. So your info on neo nazis is way off.
That's really interesting because when someone uses one definition of neonazi as anyone who supports the extermination of a race, as well as getting obsessed with transgenderism and so on, they get shouted down with "no, Nazis are members of Hitler's party" but now someone is defining them as members of Hitler's party and you're shouting them down by saying the modern definition is different.
People who think Israel is white probably never been there. Similar about apartheid, if you look at actual laws quoted as evidence of apartheid they don't come close to places like Saudi Arabia or Malaysia and honestly a bunch of other countries who have their own laws of return/restricted citizenship/political representation/cultural representation etc (even South Korea has it all)
But obviously this is not an excuse for Israel government supporting religious orthodox extremists and their settlements and aggression against Muslims in the area near Jordan. If you just take the situation there then it is basically a war zone.
If West Bank was considered part of Israel then I can see elements of apartheid but people who say it's apartheid also say West Bank is a separate country. You can't have apartheid in another country. Call it invasion/occupation or apartheid, but pick one? (Also yes this is whataboutism but what Russia is doing is orders of magnitude worse if invasions are considered.)
Absolutely this. I have a strong left leaning Irish family and believed the apartheid hoax for most of my life. It’s absolutely false. Arabs in Israel have a great life.
For me I have been to Israel end of covid before I heard apartheid accusations. I talked to Arabs there and honestly if I was offered to swap my Russian rights with rights of Arab in Israel I would go for it. I mean healthcare alone... When I looked up the allegations it appears that most alleged "apartheid" laws were common to other countries, so why double standard.
It sort of made sense if I thought just of West Bank. One reason, freedom of movement. I did not see from the inside but from what I read it is semi closed like a warzone with checkpoints and all. What's worse is that it is supposed to be closed for everybody but allegedly it is not equal and Israel military tolerates Jews but can be way overly strict to Muslims. Some people mad at Netanyahu for it.
But it's a weird limbo, people say it's apartheid and then the same people also say it's occupied and not really part of Israel. (Except for people who also say Israel shouldn't exist but I wouldn't listen to them, because then why a shitton of militant Muslim countries are allowed to exist right there but Israel isn't considering it is much more democratic and Jews were there as early if not earlier than Muslims)
I comment on many topics, including distributed systems, node.js, Linux, low latency topics, software licensing, and yes science, history, the law and politics.
I don’t think I’m particularly pro-Israel, but since HN seems fixated with this particular conflict over others I certainly post in those submissions - just like everyone can see you do. This unnecessary personal attack is completely off topic (you’re responding to a post about me realising I believed in a myth about Israel) and easily proven false by looking at my post history - and also yours.
No it doesn’t. That’s why I referenced it, as well as your comment history (which includes you spreading a conspiracy theory about a dictatorship in the United States) in the comment you’re replying to.
I think your main issue seems to be that I don’t agree with you on Middle Eastern history, science, law and social matters.
I think Netanyahu is not certain of the left/international part of his population. They would likely abandon israel if things got to bad (which they tend to do in that neighborhood)- he sort of uses the senseless hatred of the arabs worldwide as a sort of kadyrite barrier troop- if you cant go anywhere and be save- might as well stay in israel.
Yes I think they like to camouflage a very basic, garden variety hatred behind a cloak of supposed "virtue" but really they are just haters, plain and simple.
They accuse others of being nazis so that they themselves can be nazis.
I think its a real interesting challenge, from a hacker perspective. How do you bootstrap a culture, that spirals into this minima, to recover and redevelop a interest in science and cultural development, without external intervention or enforcement.
You only have the Robinson Crusoe elements you start out with and the technology and external culture that is not actively rejected by maximum religious fervor.
If all other parts of humanity got stuck in this mindset, how could a open culture redevelop from this? Its really tough, i bow my head to the Houdini who pulls it off.
Like - can you school a child, without school, only on youtube videos - or with some teacher LLM, downloaded to an illegal phone, smuggled in and only capable to run during the day on some battered solar.
I appreciate the definition page. Were there additional links you intended to provide indicating the relationship to Democrats? I did provide additional links indicating the relationship between the Republican party and Dominionism; do you have any questions on them I could address?
I like that your comments and counterarguments are so asinine as to thoroughly discredit yourself and your worldview, but not so asinine as to hide the evidence by getting it flagged.
It's a delicate balance and I'm glad you can strike it so consistently.
> How does one hate a country, or love one? Tibe talks about it; I lack the trick of it. I know people, I know towns, farms, hills and rivers and rocks, I know how the sun at sunset in autumn falls on the side of a certain plowland in the hills; but what is the sense of giving a boundary to all that, of giving it a name and ceasing to love where the name ceases to apply? What is love of one's country; is it hate of one's uncountry? Then it's not a good thing. Is it simply self-love? That's a good thing, but one mustn't make a virtue of it, or a profession... Insofar as I love life, I love the hills of the Domain of Estre, but that sort of love does not have a boundary-line of hate. And beyond that, I am ignorant, I hope.
Allegiance is not love. Allegiance is recognising yourself as part of some whole. It’s not impossible to feel that and also dislike or even hate the whole, though it probably would not come without psychological issues unless you channel that into political activity to effect what you think is a positive change to the whole. It’s complicated.
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.”
Any law that allows a government to renounce people's citizenship for broad, vague reasons is a very, very bad law. Regardless of its intentions, it will be used as a tool to subvert the rights of citizens even outside the target group.
Amazed to see such a take after what happened in LA. Obviously the median immigrant has strong feelings of loyalty to their mother soil as can be witnessed by the huge Mexican flags and the direct testimony of many individuals. Should we deport all those people who swear loyalty to “La Rasa”? If we want immigrants, and we should because we need them to lead us into the future, we need to be realistic about their loyalties. People are proud of their race/nationality, and immigrants often even moreso.
The Chicano movement made their own flag back in the Cesar Chavez era. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Gen Los Angeleños of Mexican origin could have used (and plenty did) and a sign finger portion of protestors made sure to incorporate the US flag as well, but a significant portion simply did not realize that the Mexican flag is not viewed as an ethnic marker outside of CA.
The US State of California WAS Mexico in 1848. Much of California still is Mexico. The personal notion of "mother soil" may have nothing to do with current political boundaries.
Wow ... this will suck. Islam, the ideology, either is a state, or meant to be a state (just ask a few muslims, they'll explain. Also historically islam was a state until 1918/1923, and died in WW1, with the leader of islam, the caliph, abandoning islam)
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.
You're applying logic to dogma. I hope you understand your error at this point, but as to exactly what's wrong:
... 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.
Does that mean all Americans should be stripped of their other citizenship since they have allegiance to a foreign state? For example Barron Trump is a dual citizen.
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.
Hate to break it to you, but you'd have to find support from the IRS / Ways and Means Committee first. For these institutions, the primary characteristic of US Citizenship is filing your taxes, no matter where to live or if you've ever even lived in the country. This puts the USA in the same odd category as Eritrea, Hungary, and I believe one other country.
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.
That would have the consequence that naturalized citizen would be second class. Because they have to watch out for what to say, otherwise somebody might denounce them and they have to fight against their live being destroyed.
The class of American citizens with two nationalities is populated more with the native born than naturalised citizens. If the class became second class, the latter would be—I suspect—underrepresented in it.
> 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.
The point is that is may be admitedly true on the part of the one accused.
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.
What is a context in which it is acceptable to say that an American's loyalty to this country can't be trusted because of their ethnicity/religion? Some of these definitions are too broad, but this is not the example to use in that argument. Accusations of dual loyalty are widely recognized as antisemitism.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are calling attention to the phrasing of the excerpt rather than insinuating that Jews collectively are more loyal to Israel than the US.
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.
I am suspicious of the motivations behind the excerpt and thus critical of the wording. Jewish Citizens can be taken to mean generically as a group or multiple instances of single individuals. They could have been more precise in their usage of language if they meant the latter, but imprecision can be useful.
>I am suspicious of the motivations behind the excerpt
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.
What did I say that made you think I support the ICE kidnappings? I was making a very specific point that you seemingly received as a much different general point.
Thanks for some actual information. I’m trying to find the directive to force student social media profiles to be public but can’t find anything yet. This article mentions everything in the wsj article that I could read (no sub) but makes no mention of requiring profiles be “public”.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/18/social-media-screen...
>I’m trying to find the directive to force student social media profiles to be public but can’t find anything yet.
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.
Does the DHS also screen for people who post anti-chinese, anti-russian, anti-canadian, anti-mexican, etc social media posts? Why screen for anti-israel comments only? I'm guessing they are not screening for anti-palestinian or anti-muslim posts.
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.
> Why is it that so much of our political class openly and unabashedly act like agents 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."
> Oh yeah, "Jews control the government", such a new trope that has nothing to do with antisemitism.
He didn't say that.
> know two members of Congress speaking frequently in defense of Palestine
This is your evidence? Really? I mean, do you guys hear yourselves?
Two members of congress? Out of hundreds? Two members who, might I remind everyone, are constantly accused of being anti-American communists?
> Was it almost politically suicidal for them?
Yes! These two are treated like the scum of the Earth by 100% of the American right and 80% of the American left!
It's not even debatable that the US is absurdly pro-Israel. I don't know what we're even arguing here. Zionists should all agree that Zionism is good, right? So why are we arguing that Zionists are some sort of minority? You should be ecstatic that our government is explicitly Zionist!
Sure, you replace "Jews" by "Zionists" and then every trope is ok. It's Zionists who have the power to influence or direct US government behavior (i.e., control it).
> Two members of congress? Out of hundreds?
Well yeah, to show something possible it's enough to show one example.
> Yes!
How is being elected to Congress political suicide?
> It's not even debatable that the US is absurdly pro-Israel.
I'm not debating that. I'm debating the idea that this is somehow doing of evil Zionist lobby or that repeating antisemitic tropes is not antisemitic because you euphemize Jews by Zionists
It is a litmus test: Israel is the most controversial western (not middle eastern) country and if you don’t criticize it, there is a good chance you will not criticize any western nation including the US. You will be easily bullied by the US govt with a tape over your mouth.
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.
Most likely the very same people that passed it are part of the lobbying of you know who ( i don't want to say the exact names or party). Any future bills in favor of that foreign country will be hard to protest against. petitioning will be heavy criticized for being anti-semitic in nature firstly, which will delay any reverse action to a bill, such as a arms deal package or some aid in war effort such what's happening right now. another way to block none align congress vote or civil pushback.
Maybe because Israel is accused of committing blatant crimes against humanity at the moment, and you can't let that potential reality seep into the country. Or its just more anti-freedom (speech) moves by the current administration in an effort to control public perception.
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 also roughly 100 million Evangelical Christians in the US who are strongly in favor of political support of Israel too. It is a little silly to think the American position on this is exclusively about wooing the votes of 6 million people who will overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats anyway.
Not true. That assumption reflects a dated and oversimplified narrative. Most Evangelicals under 50 give no special status to Israel. No scripture instructs modern Christians to give political Israel special treatment.
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.
You are right that young Evangelicals are less supportive of Israel, but that is an overall trend in the US[1] and not specific to Evangelicals. Maybe the rest of what you said is true about your specific church, but it doesn't seem to match the general polling data.
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].
" exclusively about wooing the votes of 6 million people "
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?
I wasn't comparing any two blocks of 6m people. I was comparing a specific group of 6m to a specific group of 100m. Do you think the 6m American Jews have more political power than the 100m American Evangelical Christians?
I'm unclear on why you think those links answer my question. Do you think AIPAC refuses money from non-Jews? Do you think there aren't Evangelical leaning PACs or other lobbying groups?
> There are more Jewish people in the US than Israel. I guess this is what they're securing against?
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"?
> Jewish people are literally being gunned down in the streets in the US, so you don’t need to put antisemitism in scare quotes.
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.
I was using it as an illustrative example, so the contents of the prayers don’t matter, they could have been praying to see unicorns. Did you read the comment?
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.
Of course when people's applications are rejected, exactly 0 reason will be given other than that they failed the screening process. So nuances like this are, in practice, irrelevant. When the obvious motivation is to eliminate criticism of the Israel, all they're going be looking for is criticism of the Israel.
It's easy for one to criticize Israel in a way that one does not criticize other countries because there are no countries acting like Israel is at the moment: Genocide, apartheid, unprovoked war, etc, etc.
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.
That doesn't prevent people from labelling you as an antisemite unfortunately. I'm not on social media but if I was, I wouldn't make negative statements about Israel if I actually cared about entering or staying in the US.
> 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.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism is so vague that it includes otherwise innocuous and/or factual statements.
> “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.
They go on to discuss more than a page of examples, all of which sound completely reasonable to me. Or perhaps you could just quote the very next paragraph, which is pretty specific:
> 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.
A key issue in this is that the screening process is completely opaque. I have acquaintances who have tried to get visas to the US, and it usually takes several attempts - with nothing really changing in between. It mostly comes down to the exact immigration officer working somebody's application, and the waxing and waning of the moon.
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).
Yeah, I’m not saying anything about the idea of screening someone based on the content of their thoughts (i.e. their social media feed). I’m only commenting about the purported unreasonableness of the definition of antisemitism.
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).
“X might include Y”, “X frequently Z”, “X is often W”: these phrases do not legally define anything, they’re merely vibes. If I argue that a particular statement is neither Y, Z, or W, that doesn’t logically imply that it isn’t X.
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.
> 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.
> > 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...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.
Accusing a nation of something bad is precisely what their definition of anti-semitism includes. The examples they gave are all from the controversal definition of anti-semitism.
> Accusing a nation of something bad is precisely what their definition of anti-semitism includes.
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.
But under this guideline it seems that if I say "ethnostates are a crime against humanity and Israel is committing genocide to create an ethnostate just like the Nazis did" I'm violating these guidelines in a number of ways despite this being purely political criticism leveled at the state and not at Jewish people.
This is dystopia in the making, 1984 coming alive, first of all; why someone's social media activity would be the matter of the government? Everybody in the world has freedom of speech, it is a human right. US will no longer be free if it peruses politically motivated persecution and segregation. This is political hysteria akin to anti-communist and anti-Japanese hysteria during WW2 and after.
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 dystopia in the making, 1984 coming alive, first of all; why someone's social media activity would be the matter of the government?
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.
> Everybody in the world has freedom of speech, it is a human right
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.
The US doesn't even have free speech, as we can see from this event happening right now. Many European and European-style countries have weaker constitutional protections, but stronger actual protections in reality, than the USA. The USA's constitution significantly differs from the USA's reality.
According to who? Please cite a specific court case where a judge ruled that calling for the boycott of Israeli products was deemed illegal.
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.
Couldn't be happier - I am the single person I know among my peers (college) who doesn't have social media (except HN). The reason is not some concern for privacy though, I have ADHD and can't handle having social media installed on my phone lol, I become dysfunctional pretty quick.
Romans called barbarians anyone who is not from the Roman Empire, I don't think Israel thinks any better of its Muslim neighbors. And Jews had pretty bad experience under the Roman Empire in then called Judaea and now Palestinians have pretty bad experience under Israel. Palestinians are Jews of the Islamic world as well as Kurds.
The Romans never referred to the Greeks, Jews or Egyptians as barbarian. If they did it certainly wasn't with great frequency.
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.
How so? Double standards for the only Jewish state seems like a pretty clear example of antisemitism, at least.
(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.)
On that one (and many of the Israel-related ones) I think the problem is that it implicitly assumes that because you do, you do it because of antisemitism.
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.
All of the mentioned bullet points could be applied to other countries.
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.
If there's some universal principle underlying your treatment of the US, I wouldn't really call that a double standard, assuming the principle is based on things like economic or military capabilities and not race, national identity, etc.
This is nonsense. At this point in time anybody who isn't of a very specific political persuasion is going to be criticizing Israel, including most Israelis!
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.
This is definitely not true. For instance 69% of Israelis support(ed) ending the Gaza 'war' after a hostage exchange. [1] Only 21% opposed.
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.
The war itself is unpopular, but the long-standing policies that contributed to it, like supporting settlers, second-class citizenship, restrictions on movement, etc. are all generally popular last I checked.
I think people are capable of nuance. Even if one might support settlers or even things like a normal war, that's dramatically different than supporting behavior that in one instance seems to be trending towards literally genocidal in nature (and not the hyperbolic genocide that propaganda always claims the 'other side' is engaging in any relatively normal war), and in another instance is just seemingly psychotic and, at best, demonstrating a severe lack of intelligence - both state and personal.
But they are spot on. The performative declaration of war on so-called antisemitism by this administration is 100% just a façade to target Muslims.
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.
Trump's daughter is married to an Orthodox Jew and also converted to Judaism herself. That's something that's not like other religions where you can just say you're a Christian (of this denominator or that) - it's an official, tested, and very extended affair, particularly in the Orthodox tradition. In other words, it's "real." And Trump has always been deferent, come obsequious, to Israel, like many US politicians. In fact he was the first sitting President to visit the Wailing Wall back in his first term - traditionally US Presidents do that before elections.
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.
>yes I do believe this administration is completely and sincerely focused on Israel and the interests of Israel
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.
Antisemitism is largely becoming an irrelevant word because of how it's weaponized to prevent criticism of Israel. At this point in time many Jews would be considered antisemitic with how it's used, especially Ultra Orthodox who tend to view the existence of Israel (the current political entity) as blasphemous for reasons outside the scope of this post. It's also somewhat a dumb term given that e.g. Palestinians are Semites.
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.
Outside of just wanting privacy for its own sake, there are many, many reasons to keep social media profiles private: health privacy, sexual orientation privacy, relationship privacy, location privacy, financial privacy, etc.
“To facilitate this vetting, all applicants for F, M and J non-immigrant visas will be asked to adjust the privacy settings on all their social media profiles to ‘public’”, the official said.
The party who loves to scream about social credit scores in China is essentially implementing... A social credit score, where only government approved speech is allowed.
Talked to police guy once for something unrelated. The moment I mentioned I don't have a telephone number all alarm bells went off in this man and you could tell the police guy was suddenly suspicions.
I have vague but genuine concerns about that. I legitimately don't have any social media accounts. Does HN count? Well, none that can be casually associated to the name on my passport.
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.
Thats some semantic pedantic gymnastics. Even if you could persuade me to agree with you (and I very much do not) it does not matter. The only definition that matters here is the governments, and they LOVE overreach.
This is really not a convincing argument. Plenty of people put social information in their profile on this forum; there is clearly some social aspect to commenting and I’d argue the social aspect is the reason to comment and read comments. There are comments that are automatically more interesting to read because of the name in front of it.
> 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.
Under your definition Reddit and Twitter/X aren't social media either, since you're mostly interacting with strangers. I believe your definition doesn't reflect how the term is used.
Now that we are there, deleting social media presence for privacy concerns, you will need to keep a "Stub" account to access the parts of life that require social media accounts: marketplace, local groups, immigration.
I killed my accounts with fire some time back and have yet to come across a single instance where I've felt that I've needed some kind of "stub" account. YMMV, however.
Not at all, many friends have at least tried to cancel FB account, even when those assholes are making it a very lengthy and painful process. We talk about doctors and surgeons here in their 30s and 40s, wife is a doctor who waits for second year to get her FB account deleted so these are our social circles.
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.
Not having social media is itself considered suspicious in these same guidelines. Or at least that's what I read in the news when they started talking about this recently.
Wouldn’t that be likely to be taken as identical to having a locked one? I don’t use traditional social media, and never have, and have always assumed that would cause me to “fail” a test like this.
(Sorry, I mean this to read as a question, not an assertion.)
Nobody is illegally entering the country and then beginning graduate studies at Harvard, so if you understand this as an attack on universities and an attempt to essentially “close” the country then it makes perfect sense. That JD Vance interview where he went on about “we didn’t need immigrants to get to the moon” is probably the clearest statement of their outlook.
Or create two accounts for each. One with your full name, where you only share kitten videos, another one pseudonymous that you will actually use. Unlock the official one for the officers.
Much of the world is against LBGTQ+ rights. If an immigrant has social media posts expressing open hatred and even calls for violence against people with sexual orientations not approved of in their home culture, will you still have an open mind about welcoming them in the US with open arms?
This isn't theoretical. Both China and India, the two countries that supply the most students to the US, prohibit marriage equality. Both have extensive discrimination throughout their societies, both at the government and cultural levels.
Your comparison of Muslims and American evangelicals has self selecting bias. There are places where non straight orientation is punishable by law or extrajudicially. Maybe they call you homophobic slurs but you might not walk to tell the tale. None of those places are Catholic as far as I know. One or two of them bordering Israel. In Russia if it's not done by Muslim extremists than by fascists/activists or by government classifying LGBT as extremism. (This is not anti Russian propaganda, it's in the laws. I lived in Russia for most of my life and I met let me count... zero gay people that I know of. But I know some forever unmarried people, I wonder what's going on;)
> There are places where non straight orientation is punishable by law or extrajudicially
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.)
Until 2015 gay marriage was illegal in many states. Plenty here hold pretty nasty anti lgbtq beliefs. This is a bad argument for screening visa applicants for beliefs, and not what this new rule will be used for. It will be used to deny anyone critical of israeli genocide, people who think we shouldn’t destroy the planet’s climate, and people who think women should control their own bodies.
If it's an armed conflict then it started a long time before that. Otherwise Israel wouldn't have built the hilariously named "Freedom Wall".
It's incredibly depressing that the Jewish people have basically done unto others as was done to them. Even if we don't consider it a genocide, then it's definitely a pogrom and Gaza and the West Bank are ghettos. I would have hoped that at least one people might have learned that this kind of stuff is wrong based on their own history.
But i guess all that we learn from history is that no-one learns from history.
“Curate” away the 4k footage of children, doctors, refugee camps being bombed, aid blockades starving people? Must be nice to have your head in the sand like that. Quibble over the word genocide all you want - it is very clearly a genocide unfolding in front of us.
It might not be what the US is screening for, but if you're forced to make your account public, not just to the US, then your own government would also know.
Many Americans have never seriously looked at a map before. Should they be categorically denied entry to foreign countries for their stereotypical ignorance?
Here in America, you can't put someone on trial for a crime they haven't committed. Even if you think they're from a suspicious country. That's called racial profiling, and it's forbidden by civil rights laws for a reason; nobody should have to tolerate the indignation of their peer's stupidity.
> Here in America, you can't put someone on trial for a crime they haven't committed
Actually in the US you can - it's why there's stories of innocent men and women being released from jail after other evidence proves their innocence (eg: DNA).
That's exactly why they're being released, though. If you manufacture a bogus case or plant evidence against someone, that's not probable cause. You're not acting within the acceptable norms of a just society, and the rectification of these cases is proof. Oftentimes the falsely persecuted will countersue, especially if they get an early injunction.
> > Should they be categorically denied entry to foreign countries for their stereotypical ignorance?
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?"
I mean, given the current political climate, I think someone with posts like that would be welcomed easily, and people who are pro LGBT, especially pro-trans, would be denied outright
Well, to me, it sounds as if the ban on LGBT folks joining the armed forces is a kind of protection of LGBT folks, especially given the world seems to be moving towards an inevitable near-future in which US forces will be deployed to Canada, Greenland, Panama, Iran, Russia (to protect it from invasion by Ukraine and/or Europe), Gaza (to protect the construction of Trump's Oasis on the Mediterranean), Taiwan.
Obviously not by this administration, but if we are creating new powers, the question of the principle is relevant and its potential use by a Democratic administration is also relevant.
I, personally, don't see a problem with creating an ideological test for certain kinds of visa holders or permanent residents. As Karl Popper noted in outlining the paradox of tolerance, unlimited tolerance can lead to the destruction of tolerance itself. I think it's worth exploring ways for the government to prevent enemies of liberalism from entering the country, even if we already face illiberalism at home.
That being said, I think this specific proposal threatens personal privacy far too much to be justified.
I dunno, I think it's not super great that I might not be able to pass an ideological test to get into my own damn country. Why do they get to say that what I believe isn't "American".
Like, I'm "Texas from Texas"- my anglo ancestors go back before the 1836 revolution.
But I'm not a racist so I have often been told that I'm "not really from Texas".
It's the same vibe here. I'm way more worried about the fact that they wouldn't let me back into the country if I had to pass an ideological litmus test than I am worried that someone with illiberal beliefs is going to join the other theocrats in Texas.
To add some nuance to Popper's argument, the implication is that intolerance means violence against others.
People can believe whatever they like as long as they don't become a movement dedicated to murdering those they don't like.
Historically, observably, and objectively, the US right has much more of a history with political murder than the left does.
This isn't some ideological purity test about "liberalism". This is about maintaining a culture that supports a broad spectrum of views in a peaceful way.
When the state itself crosses that line the state itself becomes oppressive, and would-be residents should be asking themselves whether that's the kind of state they want to live in, or visit.
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.
Right, just freaking stop going there. Americans have made it loud and clear (by voting with majority) that they don't like outsiders.
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.
> To be clear, at this point the majority of Americans do not support the current administration
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.
While I feel like many across the world realize this, unfortunately it doesn't make them any safer while they're here. Moreover, the most extreme haters of outsiders feel empowered by the current regime, adding to the risk.
That's not clear. The problems and the agenda don't align. Majority definitely supports fixing the problems, but the political leadership clearly supports keeping things dysfunctional. Remember that the US Congress was ready to pass legislation to solve before the last election, and Trump made them stop it so he could campaign on the problems.
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.
I'm Canadian. Before Trump, I made several trips a year to the USA. all my vacation money was spent there. Now I go to Europe every summer instead.
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?
Yup. When we said there were problems 10-20 years ago it would have been good to have a nuanced discussion about immigration. Now we have this instead.
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.
USA is a beautiful place to visit and people are very hositable. I think that there's a big difference between what people do and what the state does. I do agree however, that what is happening in this country right now is deeply concerning.
The same can be said about just about any country.
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.
> but when Americans were faced with a choice between a racist, misogynist, fraudulent, insurrectionist sex offender and anyone else, they showed their values.
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.
> I think that there's a big difference between what people do and what the state does
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?
Speaking as a Northern neighbour of the U.S., it rings hollow when we hear American state politicians telling us that they love Canadians and really hope we visit more (tourism is down) and go back to buying American (exports are down).
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!
I think most of us would like to get rid of our idiot president, but the only way to do it now is impeachment, which would require breaking the Republican majority in both houses of the legislature. It could possibly happen next year in the mid term elections, but it's going to be tough.
> USA is a beautiful place to visit and people are very hospitable.
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.
Whilst that is nice to know, these are real tangible barriers to entry. Both literally and by making it a far less attractive place to cross the border.
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.
> 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.
UK is already almost as bad. But UKs political elite is maybe even more pro-Israel than USAs.
It really isn't. The UK government has strongly criticised the Israeli government's actions, and has applied sanctions to some far-right Israeli government ministers:
Performative and meaningless. The UK has been providing direct military support for the Gaza campaign for months now, long after it became obvious what the goals and methods were.
We lost a potentially transformative prime minister because of an insane media campaign that painted him as simultaneously wildly anti-semitic and a lackey of Putin - when the reality was that he was (still is...) popular with Jews in his local constituency, and had been protesting Russian atrocities as soon as they started, while the official story was that Putin was a potential ally who would be good for business.
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.
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.
Well, how much have the shipments solved? Any peace agreement after these years of carnage will be a lot worse for Ukraine than was on the table in 2022.
Labeling those with different views on Ukraine-Russia policy as putinists is the same phenomenon as Israel critics being labeled antisemites or pro-Hamas.
> Well, how much have the shipments solved? Any peace agreement after these years of carnage will be a lot worse for Ukraine than was on the table in 2022.
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.
Moderators hadn't touched or even seen your comment, but other community members were right to flag 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.
That is really sad, especially for people here, because the kind of people who dwell on HN are likely to specifically avoid creating much of a public profile on account of their increased knowledge and perception of these systems.
I'm tired of hearing "you have the freedom to [x]", when it's always accompanied by "but if you do exercise that freedom, you will be treated as a second-class citizen".
I think nobody is screaming here that this particular action is illegal, as I read the comments. However, there is many things governments can do, that can be considered (under different subjective considerations) unethical, following a hidden agenda or plainly stupid. My personal decision at the moment is that I do not travel to the US. Which means that at times our papers are not presented at US conferences because my PhD students don't get visa (even unrelated to the current ban). I think the US will survive this particular loss though.
The idea that countries have any right to restrict the movements of non-criminals is not settled.
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.
You seem to think that paperwork with a country’s name on it can tell you whether or not inviting that person to your land jeopardizes the safety or well being of your neighbors.
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.
"You seem to think that paperwork with a country’s name on it"
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.
I’m not sure if you are intentionally moving the goalposts, but I was referring to a passport.
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.
Oh I might have misspoken, what I meant by "the states" was "The United States" rather than "the individual states". I think capitalizing it as "The States" or even "the States" should be sufficient to distinguish it correctly in the future.
On another topic, I think neither individuals nor the states, have sovereignity over the land, only The State has. But I may be mistaken.
New business idea- AI powered burner profiles. Company starts building generic profiles that follow acceptable account, occasionally likes some or posts some lame LLM generated posts. Some point in the future company sells you access to the account.
That's against ToS, you are on the wrong ethical side. This is the technology and behaviour patterns that fraudsters use, you would be indistinguishable from an enemy .
What’s the violation again? Automating account activity? Liking stupid cat pictures? Following mid tier influencers? Having vanilla posts?
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?
the very legally binding novel-sized tos? the tos they change as often as they like to benefit only them? nobody is ethical here - they abuse us, we abuse them
Yeah.Those rules protect websites from spam for example, and in the case of more serious sites like linkedin, fraud.
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.
If the world is heading the way the US is heading, I may be inclined to start doing the same. This is the only "social media" account I have left, but if my freedom of expressing myself will be impaired by governmental stalking like this I will sadly have to "adapt". Losing my ability to help filter and manage by upvoting and flagging blows though.
> I create and delete HN accounts every... 80-200 karma. 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".
I think it's about tracking and profiling? Not wanting to be part of that is a valid choice and shouldn't be punished in any way.
Forcing a certain behavior or else you're considered suspicious is pretty twisted and dystopian. Not my problem whoever is doing this can't find a better way of separating threats from certain privacy conscious mental profiles.
Alcohol is harmful, but I have a glass of wine or whiskey from time to time. HN is my glass of whiskey.
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.
I’ve been on HN since the beginning. I’m on my 12th or so username. Like you I don’t have a Reddit, Facebook, etc. account. Social Media is a plague on society.
I think at this point the onus is on you to provide some form of alternative. Can you provide to the officers at port of entry some proof of employment, or whatever?
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.
Speaking for myself I have an HN account but why would I want those other two? And I certainly don't have any "social" accounts under my legal name.
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.
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.
This looks taken out of context. First, Economic Times is a shitty news source. The original was reported by Bloomberg, a much better news source. (What is their SEO dept doing to get ahead of Bloomberg in Google search results?)
> 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.
This part is important: "any foreigners seeking to visit Harvard University"
Is Rubio's cable sent to US embassies worldwide public? It would be nice to see the full text.
There is now a notice on each and every US Embassy website visa home page that says:
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.
Hat tip: Great follow-up. I asked Google AI about those visa types and it told me:
> F, M, and J visas are all nonimmigrant visas for foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in exchange programs in the United States.
Tangent: US must have 5x the number of visa types compared to most other highly developed nations. Whenever there is a US visa discussion on HN, I always learn about a few more types! Plus they have all sorts of weird carve-outs for various nations: Looking at you Australia and Singapore.
> What is their SEO dept doing to get ahead of Bloomberg in Google search results?
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.
What’s stopping someone from using LLMs to create a alt account? Imagine a bot that takes stuff from you actual a/c and posts the mirror opposite posts on the alt one.
Well, the guy was elected democratically, and democracy is supposed to work, right? Where did things go wrong? Why do people elect someone and then complain the person is bad? How do people choose who to vote for? What is even the point of complaining, what are you going to do? Elect someone else next time, so that the same thing happens? Revolt? Good luck with that.
What makes you think the world has ever been sane? Tell me what I'm missing, please.
Democracy was subverted with Citizen's United. Campaign finance regulation existed for a reason. We no longer have a sovereignty after it as foreign nations can purchase influence through PACs. In order to begin regaining democratic rule, we must regulate campaign finance again.
I’m not sure the logic that “he was elected democratically, therefore everything he does is fine and is what people wanted” is sound. I’m not sure why you do.
I'm only saying that, could it be that democracy doesn't actually work? It's not the first time Trump is the president, so he must have done really well for people to elect him again, right? He definitely was not impeached two times, right?
It's unclear how it was supposed to work in the first place as there is no basis upon which I can decide who to vote for given a number of strangers I don't know anything about. I also know next to nothing about history, politics, economy, law, et cetera. Candidates usually promise things that are easy to understand of course, but as we've seen time and time again there is no consequences for not following through.
Democracy does "work" in the sense that there is some causal, albeit not direct, relationship between votes cast and representatives elected, vis-a-vis voting for said representatives. Trump supporters voted for him, and his agenda, and are getting what they voted for. And under the American electoral system neither majority support per capita nor even a popular vote beyond a margin of error are required for success, because states and state electoral votes (which are biased to favor rural, conservative politics) determine the outcome.
The problem here is not democracy per se so much as the inherent biases in the American system which allow a minority of voters to hijack the process so long as they live in the correct states, and American culture in which the apathy and disgust towards government and politicians is so toxic that people literally cannot see a difference between any one politician and any other.
As for who to vote for, I mean, I'm not a huge fan of Kamala Harris or the Democrats but I don't think she would be doing half of the heinous shit that Trump currently is, so I would posit the apparently controversial thesis that y'all should have not fucking voted for Donald Trump. This was one of the rare elections in which there was a right choice and a wrong choice. Or, if you can't accept that, a greater evil and lesser evil.
But Americans chose the greater evil. Barring some revelation of electoral fraud, Trump was America's choice, fairly and legitimately elected within the rules of the system. Democracy worked as intended. This is the government Americans wanted. Now Americans just have to deal with it.
> and American culture in which the apathy and disgust towards government and politicians is so toxic that people literally cannot see a difference between any one politician and any other.
This was also pushed over decades by both a major political party and the most popular news network. It was deliberate cultural poisoning.
> Well, the guy was elected democratically, and democracy is supposed to work, right?
No, democracy is not supposed to "work" 100% of the time without fail. It obviously depends on the context, and the details of how that particular democracy is implemented.
This one isn't as bad as some other things that have already happened in the space, but I've been wondering...
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?
Hey that's me! I was even willing to do long distance relationship with my partner for it and almost landed a job offer.
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
I’ve seen the tide beginning to shift among prospective students and some engineers, particularly those from India or China who could face 20+ year waits to get a green card even if they were sponsored. Doubly so with the big cuts in research funding. The last 10 years have shown how capricious the conditions for temporary immigrants are so it’s risky to be in that position unless you plan to go somewhere else after studies or have a clear and fast path to permanent residence/citizenship. As Canadians many of us have decided not to visit the US for tourism until things change. Realistically the US has a lot going for it so things will probably not change dramatically unless the administration continues to damage trust over a long time period and some compelling alternatives appear.
I recently migrated to the USA from Canada. I make 2x the income I made in Canada. My work is about the same as it was. I was also able to get competent medical care in the USA but in Canada I was on a waitlist for 2 years. I had to jump through a lot of hoops and the GC process was shitty, but my life is good here and I am glad I came.
I think economic freedom is a powerful motivator. Unlocking a social media account is hardly a deterrent.
This is a great point to highlight how the current ability of America to produce outcomes like yours, is downstream of their ability to maintain institutional fitness.
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.
I see this argument a lot. It works if you don't mind being surrounded by people in much, much worse condition than yours, for no reason other than policy cruelty.
> I think economic freedom is a powerful motivator. Unlocking a social media account is hardly a deterrent.
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.
Cool. As long as you dont care about LBGT persecution, children being forced to give birth and minorities being sent to El Salvador, enjoy your economic freedom. Seems like your values and what you look for in a society are a match with the current state of affairs in USA.
If you're ambitious and individualistic (as those who create the most economic value are), there's no alternative to the United States still.
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.
Even before this whole shitshow I thought about moving to the US because 2x the salary compared to Europe, but jumping through the visa application hoops just isn't worth it.
Funny thing about US salaries: Based on my limited reasearch, freelance rates and hourly rates for employees seem pretty close there. For employees, there's also no particular job security, sick leave, vacations in any guaranteed way, it comes down to the benevolence of the company.
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.
It matters very much where you get hired. The silicon valley/Seattle area companies pay double or triple what you get on the countryside. And yeah, freelancing in the US is very different compared to Europe.
I have never before heard about this issue regarding US work visas. Isn't it normal for your employer to hire a visa consulting firm to handle all the work?
Right but that’s not an oversight. The fact that this puts the universities in bad straits is fine if you’re running an administration deliberately hostile to universities.
It depends on where you're coming from. If you grew up in a poor country, or one run by cartels or drug lords of an oppressive regime, the worst parts of the US can be an improvement. The current political climate has been around for a decade now, news like this is nothing to be surprised about.
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.
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.
> 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.
I think I understand your point, but isn't calling this "bootlicker ethos" a bit strong?
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.
> I think I understand your point, but isn't calling this "bootlicker ethos" a bit strong?
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 see these changes in enforcement as positive to me, as they do not restrict me in any way except in false positives
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 appreciate you sharing your perspective, and I'll assume it's sincere, and I don't know why you were downvoted.)
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?
I will spend this weekend creating burner social media accounts for my kids as a precaution. Each one will be crafted to look like they've never had a controversial thought in their lives.
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.
My only tip isn't really useful. Just avoid going to that hostile country for now. Unless there's a specific necessity. And if that's the case, then change all your social media accounts info, change the name, change birthdates, missmatch as much info as possible. Delete photos of yourself/family. Then for 'burner' accounts, make them on a different social network, like bluesky, myspace (they're still around), and then use an AI to generate ideas for posts and just make those as posts for the next while. The problem will be making a realistic timeline/history for new accounts. Alternatively "your kids aren't allowed to use social media", and that clears up a lot of work. But honestly just avoid the risk of traveling there in the first place, is it worth the risk of being detained?
PRISM [1] says hello. He may have fallen out of the news cycle, but he's not only still around but bigger, badder, and more invasive than ever. That phone you used to set up 2FA online with? Well that conveniently ties your real name, address, and more right to specific accounts. And he's collected it and passed it along for storage, in perpetuity.
I've been to China a lot while also being critical of it sometimes on Facebook, and have never been refused a visa, even a work Z visa. Either they aren't looking or can't look because Facebook is blocked in China. My guess is simply that they aren't looking.
They generally only look on Weibo & other Chinese-exclusive social media, and they do it all the time, not just while you're in customs. For something on Twitter, Reddit, Facebook etc it would need to be something really, really egregious (and you would know about it) like organising or raising funds for the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, or something similar. It wouldn't be enough to just express a political opinion that the US State Department has expressed, like "China is committing a genocide of the Uyghurs". Maybe if you're saying it in Chinese it's more likely that would lead to issues because that's what they're used to dealing with, but I think it's unlikely. They care about what their nationals are doing, and they care about what's happening on their own social media networks; that's mostly it.
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.
> It wouldn't be enough to just express a political opinion that the US State Department has expressed, like "China is committing a genocide of the Uyghurs". Maybe if you're saying it in Chinese
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
>In 2025 if you are a public person saying it you will get consequences. See Hobhouse case.
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.
This. I have a watermelon costume purchased years ago for a fruit themed costume party, but today it's code for supporting Palestinians/Gaza and a picture of me wearing it might get me banned from entering the US.
Yes, it is not possible. We can't predict but can follow the trends.
Governments tend to want to be seen as a god-like entity protector/judge of all.
So they hate satire or anything that means they're not being taken seriously.
Just recently Brazil decided to jail a comedian, for instance.
There's no need. Just make some accounts, upload a pic, leave it alone. The only purpose of that is to avoid any extra restrictions they may later place on new accounts. Like, I have 10 Gmail accounts from before they wanted a phone number, plus a few burner Facebooks. I made one new Gmail recently, and it was banned without explanation.
> Just lasagna pics, birthday cakes, kittens, golden retrievers, baby goats, maybe an artsy photo of a leaf with #blessed.
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.
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.
Even China doesn't do this. I've crossed the border hundreds of times and was never asked to hand over electronic devices - in fact, they barely asked any questions at all. In contrast, my few experiences crossing the U.S. and Canadian borders were much more invasive (I'm Canadian).
Yeah. They basically just ask if you're a journalist when applying for a visa there, and if you're not, they don't care. You're basically auto-approved so long as you pay the fee.
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.
Winston Sterzel, who is probably one of the "edge cases of popular Youtubers who lived there for years" you refer to, has a deep love for China and the Chinese people. He does not say that much, but I think I can see it in his videos, e.g., of daily life on the Chinese street.
He learned the language, bought a house there, got married, and did not want to leave.
I am from Australia where China has flexed its trade leverage on a pretty much yearly basis against us as a collective, and has often tried to use our University systems supposed reliance on Chinese students to try and affect discourse in our Universities.
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.
> At least when China does this kinda thing there's not so strong a stench of hypocrisy.
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.
A Greek friend of mine who applied for a visa to do a PhD in US about a month ago, was required to unlock their social media profile by the US embassy, this is already happening.
Of course its worth making a fuss about it. My social media are private because what's getting shared in it is for close friends and family only. The US government has no right searching through it. This is a big joke and I'm afraid it's only the beginning. Personally, with how things are going, I don't think I'm pursuing a PhD in the US after graduating. What's next, sharing a backup of my private conversations?
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)
I can fake, change or delete my social media. I can't fake, change or delete my biometrics. So it's crazy to me to see people focusing on the least worst violations of their privacy like the government seeing their vacation photos.
>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 not sure what your argument is. I'm not trying to talk about the semantics of the word right. Yeah every human rule is a social construct, I'm just saying this is bad, and it's only the beginning.
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 guessing you're a US citizen, because this isn't about the US.
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.
I expect my elected government to obey the Constitution under which it is set up. Treating anyone differently because they exercised freedom of speech is against how the US is supposed to work.
What does your previous comment have to do with it?
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?
I realize that you aren't from the US, so maybe you don't know how US courts have interpreted the first amendment. The US government cannot prohibit "swastikas and other schizo shit", as distasteful as they are. Your employer is perfectly free to do so, however. Those are two different things in the US.
Of course it’s for more than that. It’s a fabulously oppressive tool that’ll get used for whatever the hell power-hungry folks want. That’s not to say it won’t be used for your proposed purpose! Just gotta think bigger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHRA_definition_of_antisemitis... Assume the IHRA definition of antisemitism has been the justification of all this - a reasonable document, and then a bunch of clauses explicitly to prevent criticism of Israel. Written before they started ethnic cleansing Gaza.
Forums are not "social media", this gotcha needs to stop. They've existed for longer than the web itself, we're pseudonymous, we hardly share anything about our private life, this has nothing to do with the commonly accepted definition of "social media" unless we're being overly pedantic for the sake of it.
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
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.
I think the worst thing about this attitude that sites like HN aren't social media is that it lets users feel superior just for using these sites even if they engage in the same low quality behaviors found on other social media.
"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.
Smugness is definitely a problem on Reddit, but I think in the case of Hacker News you’re often dealing with older guys who grew up on either traditional forums or BBS. When you try to tell them that what they are doing is also social media, they reject it because they associate it with the networks that emerged from around 2005 to 2010, which they perceive as vapid owing to the emphasis on image over text.
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.
But HN is not a social media, you don’t publish and are not linked to anyone (I cannot subscribe to your comment) on this site. Your definition of social media is almost equivalent of the internet.
I know I’m being pedantic here but take a look at 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.
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.
Is minecraft a social medium? Are "stick finger here" messages in dark souls social media? They also fall under your "definition".
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.
Minecraft might qualify per this definition but that really comes down to whether you’re considering the game as a form of “content.” (e.g. FPS games would typically not qualify because they aren’t primarily intended to be a medium of expression even though most of them include a chat option).
> The key factor is that a third party has an algorithm that decides what you gets on your feed, based on the content.
Eh. Your argument keeps coming back to that same snippet from Wikipedia, which is unconvincing. Wikipedia isn't the end-all-be-all arbiter of language. "Social media" is a useful term for discussing a lot of specific phenomena that have come out of sites like facebook, instagram, twitter, etc which all rely on metrics of social graphing to track popularity and guide content exposure and interaction. (Due to the nature of your argument I feel compelled to say that I'm not trying to formalize a complete airtight definition here)
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.
> which all rely on metrics of social graphing to track popularity and guide content exposure and interaction
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.
> TikTok, IG Reels, and YouTube don't depend on a social graph at all
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.
I don’t consider an anonymous link aggregator with a forum bolted on top to be social media. To the best of my knowledge I’ve never read a comment from the same person (assuming they are people and not bots) in more than one post. Strangers passing in a pitch black room a single time is hardly social.
The bureaucrats deciding on your visa just want sources for doing a colonoscopy on your opinions. If they say HN is social media, what are you going to do?
So, aside from the first Amendment no longer applying to anyone in the U.S (not just citizens mind you) as has always been its interpretation, the government has given itself the right to explicitly, wholesale, normalize the total invasion of anyone's private "papers" (translate that to the modern era) in the name of bullshit entry security theater.
Just an FYI for anyone reading, according to the constitution, the first amendment applies to everyone, not just citizens. It specifically says "the people" rather than "citizens". Courts have ruled time and time again that citizen rights are specifically those with the verbiage "citizens" and rights like these apply to everyone.
Not that that exactly matters to this administration, who is happy to act first and let the courts figure it out never
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.
It probably applies outside. Pay careful attention to the text
| 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.
It does not say anything about when, where, or who utters speech. It only says that congress shall pass no law prohibiting it. It's highly debatable, but honestly speaking, let's be real, this right has no borders. Even if we look back to the intent, it is clear. We should ensure that it does not gain borders, because that will not be good for anyone, including citizens.
If you look at "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, it refers to "the people of the United States" which would not include aliens abroad.
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.
Yes. That is why the courts have continually ruled that rights belong to noncitizens as well
These are different:
- The people
- The people of the United States
- Citizens
The three terms are used and not interchangeably.
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.
The courts have granted rights to non-citizens in the United States, not non-citizens outside the United States.
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."
Just to add to that: the same logic is supposed to apply to the fourth amendment too since it also doesn't specify citizens. It's of course also being violated wholesale here (and has been for a long time, since before the Trump Administration). While that particular ship has sailed since long ago, it's worrisome and sad to now see the same prying and winnowing down being applied to the 1st too, which has probably been the best defended of the 10 main amendments.
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.
This is pretty stupid, especially this will affect the smarter people who don't even make social media profiles to begin with! They'll get accused of lying for not having one, but they're really just smart enough to stay off facebook and twitter..
The only crowd that is consistently in favor of free speech and privacy is the opposition. As soon there is a new crowd in power people change tune and then it is about freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences of speech. Over time people in power may use different criteria when speech should be punished, and by whom, but the differences are only in the fine details. No one in power has ever supported free speech (in modern time) if that free speech may harm their position of power or their voters interests.
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.
I'd go further. Discrimination against some people is axiomatically part of having a nation and a border. There are no nations, to my knowledge, that permit every person residing within their borders to vote and permit any person who wishes to reside in their borders entry.
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.)
Yeah, it's becoming more and more pervasive that you have to have "earned" those "inalienable" rights, by virtue of being a citizen. If those rights are great, what's one reason why they shouldn't be extended to all.
The First Amendment indeed doesn’t apply to non-US individuals abroad, as much as I wish it were otherwise (and many other countries do take a more inclusive approach on such matters).
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.
> not sure 1FA applies to non-US individuals on non-US soil
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
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.
I am curious from someone in the higher education field. Is the quality of American universities still enough to offset their fascist government? More concrete, do you expect that smart people abroad will still choose to study in the US despite these insane policies? Or do you expect they'll divert to universities in other countries?
Im not an academic but went to fairly prestigious science university (not ivy league or MIT or something like top top tier). I don’t have any experiences to compare it to because I didn’t go to school in other countries.
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.
I'm wondering how the officials are planning to verify which social media accounts an applicant holds. Apparently the idea of creating a 'clean' account for inspection is novel to them.
Also, pleasantly surprised to see this not immediately flagged off the front page. Of late, the flagging has been particularly trigger happy.
In this situation, in accordance with the Fifth Amendment, all social media platforms should and must display a prominent warning: You have the right to remain silent on this website. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
I'm pretty sure an empty social media account is more suspicious than no social media at all. Remaining silent may not be your best option.
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.
Until an empty account is seen as a red flag. The thing is, they do not need a reason to reject visa applications. This will just provide more pretexts and more power trips for border control agents and embassy bureaucrats.
Ohh thats a whole new dystopian formula! We all thought instagram was optional but soon it Will be required to show off your beach body. While drinking the correct drink. Enhance with the right ai and catefully edit out your chinese Mexican and african friends.
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.
Don't blur your friend's faces, that's suspicious. But if you leave the in their profiles will be matched up and checked too. You think the House Un-American Activities Committee was bad? The future will be 1000x more intense.
And that's kind of the point: have social media mostly filled with apolitical or at least non controversial content.
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.
Be aware that any comment here or anywhere on the internet or in private messages or spoken in private near a device with a microphone might also be used against you by the US government (yay freedom). You might think it's fine. At some point your personal views too will be at odds with the government.
This has been the case at least since 2007 with PRISM. That's what Snowden leaked in 2013 which confirmed the long time conspiracy theory that the NSA recorded all communications on the internet.
This must've been what it was like to watch the Roman empire crumble (but at 200x speed). Or, heh, Venezuela at 2x speed. It only took them 13 years to go from a rich country, to collapse in democratic confidence, to total economic implosion & dictatorship.
Vetting by using social medias seems completely bonkers.
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.
For invasive data brokers that link people to their pseudonymous social media accounts, getting the contents of a private feed seems like it'd be routine.
Then they include in the violation bundle they sell to State.
You have credit score and a society that builds on it. The concept is far from new, it's just being extended.
(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)
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.
Nothing to interpret. That verse is not about israel. It is about abraham. "Israel" happens well after abraham's death.
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.
The article title is weird. The article body and quote from the US official says the visa process merely requires social media accounts to be publicly visible. "Unlocking" implies handing over credentials...
Plantarir CEO spoke about the danger of non controlled social media like Tiktok that encouraged people to speak about the genocide happening in Palestine.
Feels a bit much to ask students to open up all their social media just to study in the US. People post things without thinking too much, and now that could hurt their future.
Not sure this is the kind of message we want to send.
Why does anyone still want to study in the US? I don't even want to visit it anymore. Besides, as LGBT advocate I'm sure they will not even let me in anymore :)
Sorry, I know there's still good people there too.
You're underestimating how much the reputation of and trust in the US has fallen in Europe. Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback.
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.
I'm pretty sure that they future queen of Belgium, studying at Harvard, will be exempted for this. It will be used when DHS, ICE or any "officer" wants something against you.
Ceterum Censeo the right to Secrecy of Correspondence should be made to apply to modern digital media. Including at borders. Especially between western nations.
They already asked Harvard to monitor students for “viewpoint diversity” and make adjustments to admissions based on a government selected third party’s instructions.
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.
Why? Blatantly unconstitutional searches at the border have been going on for decades under administrations from both sides. The US public very evidently doesn't care about the rights of people entering the country. Trying to do the same thing to citizens away from the border will be a different story altogether.
The US Supreme Court has long held that the border mitigates "reasonable" in the 4th amendment such that warrantless searches at the border are constitutionally sound. [0]
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.
True. After seeing how the tech companies, media, and Biden administration acted during the pandemic, you should be worried about how quickly this can spin out of control.
Lol. The Biden administration who simply asked platforms to enforce their own terms of service?
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.
I think the other comment is referring to Biden administration coercing social media companies on covid19 content ranking until a judge stopped it. Idk if this was related, but YouTube had covid19 vaccine videos promoted to a special place on its front page for over a year.
The article you linked states that it was thrown out for technical reasons. Multiple lower courts sided with the plantiffs so it's clear that the actions taken are far from uncontroversial.
Just for the future reader: The court threw this out on the very reasonable grounds that the rightwing grievers who filed suit had no standing because NONE of them could show that Biden officials had anything to do with them getting kicked off platforms.
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.
Yes, actually it was. Go actually read the lawsuit. It sought to ban federal agencies across the board, including CISA, from communicating at all with social platforms.
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.
They’re telling everyone that you need to use their services to be allowed into the United States. Some managers are going to be so excited about those engagement numbers!
I'm not sure how to phrase this within the rules of HN, but I don't understand how anyone on HN 1. can not understand why Meta and Microsoft aren't fighting this 2. can still be remotely surprised by any of this 3. can act this has a single thing to do with security or even with Israel - neither of which remotely factor into the reason behind this policy.
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.
Fighting fire with fire, I guess. Seems very... Chinese for Vespucciland.
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.
What does this mean for China? You should be sharing your WeChat messages not just with your friends and family, but also with Donald Trump? Its not like you have a facebook page, and Wechat doesn't really work like Facebook (it isn't really suited to wide spread sharing, although some people try to do that).
WeChat still has user profile pages (and probably public posts on there?), even if most people don't use them much. Probably a case of making that public.
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.
There’s just one political leaning they care about. Weirdly it’s about one country (that recently massacred, by firing machine guns into a crowd, 60 civilians collecting international food aid).
If you openly criticize genocide and settler colonialism by Israel, you are probably the kind of person who might openly criticize the imperial efforts of the US. Especially once they become even more oppressive.
Accepting this and purely as a logistic problem, how would you deal with Hamas who have in their basic charter made clear they don't want Israel to exist?
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?
> Accepting this and purely as a logistic problem, how would you deal with Hamas who have in their basic charter made clear they don't want Israel to exist?
Hamas was specifically funded by Netanyahu to prevent a 2SS:
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.
That's probably a totally separate discussion, but in my opinion they should try to win back the hearts and minds of the Palestinians and thereby totally undermine support for Hamas. Which would certainly not be easy at this point.
This is too easy a criticism and the unhelpful form of cynicism.
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.
Just as a heads up; the currents, for native americans, are flowing backwards at present:
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.
There are numerous other examples but an increased inability to complain about unfair and discrimmanatory voting practices highlights the present direction of 'progress'.
What exactly did America do undo these? Jim Crow for blacks and segregation? Redlining? Mass deportations (they started before Trump)? Patriot act (which still exists in partial form today)?
That's pretty lame criticism considering many of those things were contemporary SOP for all countries. The USA remind abnormally libertarian despite this. Now it's getting abnormally authoritarian.
Quickly? This has been the path we have been on for at least 30 years, probably longer. Plenty of folks have been calling this out for longer.
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 think it's actually kind of a miracle it didn't happen earlier. This country has been all about getting rich since slavery. Concentration of economic power generally leads to concentration of political power (ie non-democracy). There are tons of pathways, eg lobbying, campaign finance, media ownership, threat of capital flight, regulatory capture, to name a few.
It didn’t happen earlier because before gilded age the US (among whites..) was actually quite good with equality, and then every time we were getting close the opposite force was taking over: once in the beginning of 20s century with worker rights / antitrust and once in 1930s with FDRs New Deal. Interestingly both times things were getting quite good afterwards for the people.
I think too many people are too enamored with their "team" to really dig into the policy proposals of presidents and senators. Like, for so many people being a Democrat is purely about being Not A Republican (or vice versa).
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.
Rights don't apply when you are entering another country. Americans have the right to bear arms too, but good luck with that argument when get caught at the border with weapons.
I'm a bit skeptical that students are a big source of trouble. The vast majority come here, pay universities a lot of money, spend additional money in the local community, get their degrees, and then go home or maybe stay and work in generally high paying jobs, continuing to contribute to the local economy.
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.
Do I think it's the best use of taxpayers' dollars (ie, mine) to screen for objectionable content on social media? No.
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.
Rights always apply, always. This is the thing about human rights enshrined in human rights laws in places like the EU, or about your constitutional rights (although the latter only applies to US citizens and to people physically present in the US).
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.
That depends a lot on the constitutional right. They're, generally, phrased as restrictions on the federal government (assumed to apply to state governments under incorporation post civil war).
There are a lot of times the government is limited even dealing with foreigners abroad (in legal theory anyways, ymmv in reality).
The courts haven't ruled on that yet but interstate commerce clause is pretty explicit about this kind of thing. A state can't criminalize someone going to another state to do something as that is something reserved to the federal government.
So no, there is no restriction on going to another state to get an abortion.
several states are trying to change that. laws are being proposed to ban travel, and although they are being challenged, as you said, the last word on this is not spoken yet.
and even if legal, people having an out-of-state abortion are being sued. that alone is a big restriction, because what good is a right if you don't have the means to defend yourself when that right is being challenged.
"You dont have the right to enter another country" How do you know.
"Therefore any country is allowed to investigate you" What for thought crimes?
Bootlicking levels are off the charts here. Theres nothing reasonable about investigating someones social media history, especially because opinions change over time. I dont want to see people in immigration detention because of a decade old social media post. This is the kind of behaviour that we used to criticise failed states for. "Its not safe for you to travel to syria because you gave a talk about human rights abuses of the assad regime" etc.
Americans rightly criticised Australia for preventing americans with wonky ideas from traveling to Australia.
Why is this view suddenly being normalised now that America wants to implement it?
> "You dont have the right to enter another country" How do you know.
If you're applying for a visa it's because you don't have the right to enter. Not only is there no reason to apply for a visa if you already have the right to enter, it's usually illegal to do so.
> Theres nothing reasonable about investigating someones social media history, especially because opinions change over time. I dont want to see people in immigration detention because of a decade old social media post. This is the kind of behaviour that we used to criticise failed states for. "Its not safe for you to travel to syria because you gave a talk about human rights abuses of the assad regime" etc.
The US has always been unreasonable at the border. Nothing is changing there sadly.
>If you're applying for a visa it's because you don't have the right to enter. Not only is there no reason to apply for a visa if you already have the right to enter, it's usually illegal to do so.
Really hinges on how you use the word "right". There's plenty of people in Gaza that have a right to return to their homes, but are unable to thanks to some dicks with tanks and a big wall.
There are plenty of people worldwide who are unable to enter countries when they have an established right to. Like I said. "How do you know"
If a country is occupying or blockading land that doesn't belong to them, the problem isn't their visa procedures. It's not that you have a right to enter that country - you have a right to go to that land.
Distinction without a difference. A country is a theoretical concept that is associated with a piece of land.
If a country thinks a place that you have a right to be, is that country, it doesn't diminish your right to be there.
Like for the right of return, it doesn't matter what flag is flapping in the wind, the refugees have an equal right to return to their homes. Its actually the missing link in most discussions about Israel. They could have their single state solution with literally zero fanfare if they just let everyone return to their land. The issue is that they have settled other people on that land in the mean time, and ultimately their goal has always been settlement. So they have to resist the return of those refugees.
The issue is that the US claims to be a free speech absolutist and even tries to apply this morality outside its borders using criticism and sometimes force.
The executive can only enforce laws passed by the legislature. The first amendment says that "Congress shall make no law". So how the hell can the executive make decisions about anything based on a person's speech? If Congress approved this, it's unconstitutional. If they haven't, the executive is going beyond their purview, which is also unconstitutional.
Just for clarity, we'd rather have your own words than words processed through an LLM. (I'm not saying you used an LLM—just explaining the principle. LLMs are amazing but we don't want HN conversations to be mediated by them.)
Non-native English speakers are not only welcome on HN, we're in awe of how good their English is. Most of us only wish we had any French, German, Hindi, etc. at all. So please feel free to write as you write.
Your argument only makes sense, when you jump through the hoops, squint, and crucially - add in your bits to make it make sense.
The bit you added here was “99% of people from my country broke visa conditions”.
This is something that is added by you, to make it make sense. What you are unaware of, is that the current visa process already accounts for this. I know of people who had visas rejected, because freelancer with their own training business are counted as flight risks. They get rejected at the interview stage itself. And it seems that wait times for tourists visas are years long.
Now, you might be the kind of person, who by nature either tries to see the good in something, or takes a contrarian position. The question is, did you dive beneath the ice with knowledge of what arguments are too far?
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." (Attributed to Cardinal Richelieu; disputed.)
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 know you are being rhetorical and exaggerating. But being executed for writing something is something that has happened during political instability in my country and not a rhetorical risk. It really puts things into perspective.
no I don't consider US border officers to be a risk in my threat model. I'm more concerned about dying from what I post, whether by a junta or kidnapping thieves. I personally wouln't care much other than perhaps suing for a refund of the flight .
If I'm denied entry because of something I said, it's not the end of the world, I would at most sue for a flight refund.
I'm being jocular, yes. But don't let that hide the hard reality behind it.
The more information the government (or anyone else with power over you) has, the higher the chance of false positives and of confusing correlation with causation. It's not like they will have a crack team of auditors review everything.
If you are arrested and conveyed to a foreign torture jail because an AI scanning your social media posts hallucinated that you are an international gang member, then it's also not the end of the world.
I'm very split on this. On one hand it sucks from a privacy perspective, but on the other, it makes complete sense for the US to not allow anti-Americans there.
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".
Did Ilhan Omar actually say "the US is one of the worst countries"? The only quote I'm finding[0] is one in which she says it's turning into one of the worst countries. In the same sentence she calls the US a "beacon of hope".
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.
reply