←back to thread

Korean students seek 'digital undertakers' amid US visa social media screening

(www.koreaherald.com)
64 points djoldman | 10 comments | 24 Jun 25 19:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
jan_Sate ◴[28 Jun 25 10:50 UTC] No.44403737[source]▶
I don't get why the US thought that it'd be a good idea to vet social media accounts for visa applications. If someone's having ill intent, one could easily create a burner account and fill in some random content for the sake of getting thru the visa application. Or they could even just purchase an account somewhere on the internet.

Sad to see what US has become.

replies(8): >>44403820 #>>44403835 #>>44403912 #>>44404048 #>>44404097 #>>44404355 #>>44405217 #>>44405599 #
zeroCalories ◴[28 Jun 25 11:12 UTC] No.44403835[source]▶
The goal isn't to stop terrorism, or drug trafficking, etc. It's to curb opposition. There's very little difference between someone that's anti-american but keeps their opinions to themself, and someone that has no opinions. Why do you think China cracks down on speech? Is it for shits-and-giggles?
replies(2): >>44403860 #>>44404059 #
15155 ◴[28 Jun 25 12:04 UTC] No.44404059[source]▶
> anti-american but keeps their opinions to themself, and someone that has no opinions

Why do we need to be admitting anti-American individuals to this country for any reason whatsoever?

News flash: visas are a privilege, not a right.

replies(3): >>44404094 #>>44404124 #>>44404127 #
jlebar ◴[28 Jun 25 12:13 UTC] No.44404124[source]▶
Who gets to define what is anti-American?

Perhaps you think it's anti-American to believe that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza. Perhaps I think it's anti-American to believe that the Jan 6 rioters should have been pardoned.

Whose purity test should we apply?

replies(3): >>44404163 #>>44404230 #>>44404261 #
1. 15155 ◴[28 Jun 25 12:20 UTC] No.44404163[source]▶
We're talking about foreigners: if you are a guest in someone's country, home, wherever, you should be respectful and quiet.

I don't want any foreigners contributing to any political activism whatsoever, regardless of ideology.

replies(4): >>44404200 #>>44405477 #>>44406201 #>>44407492 #
2. axus ◴[28 Jun 25 12:28 UTC] No.44404200[source]▶
I'd certainly expect visitors to be held to the same standards as the natives. This is the problem, as a US citizen I don't want to be respectful and quiet, especially when I disagree with my government.
replies(1): >>44404225 #
3. 15155 ◴[28 Jun 25 12:32 UTC] No.44404225[source]▶
> I'd certainly expect visitors to be held to the same standards as the natives.

Visitors are held to a higher standard than natives. Visitors do not have control, a vote, etc: they are temporarily permitted by the privilege of policy at the time.

> as a US citizen I don't want to be respectful and quiet, especially when I disagree with my government.

Good, don't be! You're not at risk of having a visa revoked or go unissued.

replies(1): >>44405613 #
4. tuyguntn ◴[28 Jun 25 15:39 UTC] No.44405477[source]▶
Why do you allow then foreign lobby groups?

Or why did you allow Elon to participate in elections, he was a foreigner at some point and he wasn't born in America?

5. zug_zug ◴[28 Jun 25 15:53 UTC] No.44405613{3}[source]▶
Telling the US government it's broken is a favor to the US government. Freedom of speech is a gift to both the people of this country and the institution itself, helping it be pure and accountable. It's the force that prevents us from becoming like China.

Those who seek to stop that regulating force are undermining what makes America great. Where those voices of dissent were born isn't pertinent.

replies(1): >>44406030 #
6. ryeats ◴[28 Jun 25 16:38 UTC] No.44406030{4}[source]▶
This is naive, it's clear that someone without a stake in a country could just be an agent provocateur.
replies(2): >>44406241 #>>44409534 #
7. mindslight ◴[28 Jun 25 16:56 UTC] No.44406201[source]▶
You do you, and we'll have the parties at my house then. Enjoy quietly playing Catan or whatever.

Your extrapolation to the national level is fallacious. Many of our academic institutions were deliberately hosting foreigners, with the explicit goal of being melting pots of ideas. That gave the US an exceptional cultural cachet around the globe. This whole thing is an exercise in attacking and destroying our traditional distributed institutions in favor of centralized autocratic control.

8. mindslight ◴[28 Jun 25 17:01 UTC] No.44406241{5}[source]▶
This is akin to the fallacy of saying that the accountability of "real name" policies on web forums make higher quality comments, and then you actually look at the contents of Faceboot. I mean, actual US citizens just voted this tiny-minded failure of a "president" in for the second time, because apparently he hadn't damaged the country enough the first time. Having a stake didn't help there, right? Either people are unaware they are harming themselves (stupidity/anti-intellectualism), don't care because others are getting harmed "more" (spite), or are in social media bubbles pushed by hostile actors (agent provocateurs don't actually need physical presence).
9. jlebar ◴[28 Jun 25 19:34 UTC] No.44407492[source]▶
Okay but that's not what this is about. This is saying that a foreigner cannot express private thoughts online at any point before they enter the United States.

I assume someone who goes by "15155" would believe that having private conversations online can be useful. Or do you want to post your identifying information?

10. zug_zug ◴[29 Jun 25 01:08 UTC] No.44409534{5}[source]▶
I feel like this is a ridiculous bad-faith argument. You know damned well that banning people from the country for having a JD vance meme on their phone is not stopping international agents. Arguing by presently demonstrably false hypotheticals as though they were reality makes me think it's a waste of everybody's breath talking to you.