←back to thread

523 points sva_ | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.338s | 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 #
1. BLKNSLVR ◴[] No.44315506[source]
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.

Non-LGBT front line.