←back to thread

523 points sva_ | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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. TheOtherHobbes ◴[] No.44316960{3}[source]
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.