i.e. "I don't have a social media"; "Sureeeee buddy"; "I really don't, I deleted it"; "We'll wait here until you do"
Some scary variation above.
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.
> 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.
When it’s common to have deleted your accounts due to widespread privacy impacts, it won’t be such a showstopper.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
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.
(Sorry, I mean this to read as a question, not an assertion.)
And the irony is that this would reject only those who properly did the paperwork and won't stop the people who prefer different methods of entry.
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.
Gay man here. Multi-ethnic, world travelled.
American evangelicals are up there with the mullahs in opposing both free society and everything Christ preached.
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.)
And do you think permanent residency or citizen applicants should be screened for their beliefs?
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/dec/07/einstein...
even for jewish nobel laureats in physics
why it should be different for more serious things like residence or citizenship?
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.
Of course, your scenario is a big ol’ straw person, as those beliefs are not what they are screening for.
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.
What do you think happened in a trial where a not guilty verdict is reached?
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).
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?"
Non-LGBT front line.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.