←back to thread

523 points sva_ | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.249s | source
Show context
testfoobar ◴[] No.44314177[source]
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.

replies(4): >>44314266 #>>44314635 #>>44315092 #>>44315430 #
Mountain_Skies ◴[] No.44314266[source]
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.

replies(8): >>44314297 #>>44314298 #>>44314330 #>>44314358 #>>44314382 #>>44314615 #>>44314676 #>>44316550 #
digianarchist ◴[] No.44314297[source]
Right. That’s what these new powers will be used for. To defend LGBT folks in the United States. /s
replies(2): >>44314517 #>>44315506 #
derektank ◴[] No.44314517[source]
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.

replies(3): >>44315177 #>>44315345 #>>44316960 #
1. riffraff ◴[] No.44315345[source]
Are you really advocating for 1984's thoughtpolice?

If someone has "bad" ideas and they keep them to themselves by having private social media accounts, it's crazy to think it's a risk to society.

Countries already have rules to deal with hate speech, inciting riots, etc.