In general, I see no problem with law enforcement reading information someone posts publicly on social media and using it against them if it constitutes evidence of a crime or intent to commit a crime. I do, however see some issues with this.
One of them, not mentioned in the article is that the US government is demanding that visa applicants tell the government about all their social media accounts. Being forced to reveal a pseudonymous account is a privacy issue. In addition, the software is looking for ‘“derogatory” comments about the nation’, which is a free speech issue.
Same goes with applying for jobs. I’ve had some recruiters and interviews look at me like I have 3 heads when I tell them I have no social media by the likes of Facebook, Instagram, etc. Like I’m sorry, I didn’t realize broadcasting my life online was a requirement to be gainfully employed
Things like this work out for the best I find. I like working at a place where no one cares how eccentric I am as long as I do my job. I have a coworker, and legit I do enjoy working with him, but when politics comes up I don’t engage with him.
As I understand it, 1st amendment protections don’t extend to non citizens who have not established legal residency in the US already. So I think the free speech point is moot when we’re discussing people attempting to get a visa to come to the US.
I mentioned the concept rather than the constitutional amendment because they can be different.
I believe some of the legal protections do apply to visa applicants. For example, the government may not discriminate on the basis of religion as Trump attempted to do early in his presidency. It probably can refuse a visa for a history of social media posts indicating support for terrorism, and most people would probably find that justified.
What I wouldn’t find justified is denying a visa for a history of criticizing US government policy, which could certainly fall under “derogatory comments”.
More importantly, the main thing is that no non-citizen has an inherent right to American citizenship or a visa. An immigrant won’t be arrested for posting anti-American content, but they’re not owed the privilege of an invitation either.
Yeah I fall fairly solidly into the left side of the political spectrum, but I think it’s fine for any country to tell someone seeking a visa to fuck off when you find out that their twitter history is full of them posting pro ISIS memes. Hard pass, my guy.
The one point about this that I find problematic is that a policy like this is all fine and well until the wrong people get in charge of determining what sort of content is grounds for rejection.
And in that context, this article is pretty timely.
It isn’t like there is a shortage of people who want to come here. We can afford to be a bit picky.
Like all things moderation. I dont think we really should care in your hypothetical nor do I think if someone says some comment on Twatter ten years ago criticizing a part of US foreign policy that it should be held against him.
That would probably fall under explicit discrimination on the basis of religion, which is going to have more legal protections, though I’m very much not a lawyer.
In general, I see no problem with law enforcement reading information someone posts publicly on social media and using it against them if it constitutes evidence of a crime or intent to commit a crime. I do, however see some issues with this.
One of them, not mentioned in the article is that the US government is demanding that visa applicants tell the government about all their social media accounts. Being forced to reveal a pseudonymous account is a privacy issue. In addition, the software is looking for ‘“derogatory” comments about the nation’, which is a free speech issue.
It’s especially a problem to explain that you don’t have any particular popular social media account.
Same goes with applying for jobs. I’ve had some recruiters and interviews look at me like I have 3 heads when I tell them I have no social media by the likes of Facebook, Instagram, etc. Like I’m sorry, I didn’t realize broadcasting my life online was a requirement to be gainfully employed
Things like this work out for the best I find. I like working at a place where no one cares how eccentric I am as long as I do my job. I have a coworker, and legit I do enjoy working with him, but when politics comes up I don’t engage with him.
As I understand it, 1st amendment protections don’t extend to non citizens who have not established legal residency in the US already. So I think the free speech point is moot when we’re discussing people attempting to get a visa to come to the US.
I mentioned the concept rather than the constitutional amendment because they can be different.
I believe some of the legal protections do apply to visa applicants. For example, the government may not discriminate on the basis of religion as Trump attempted to do early in his presidency. It probably can refuse a visa for a history of social media posts indicating support for terrorism, and most people would probably find that justified.
What I wouldn’t find justified is denying a visa for a history of criticizing US government policy, which could certainly fall under “derogatory comments”.
More importantly, the main thing is that no non-citizen has an inherent right to American citizenship or a visa. An immigrant won’t be arrested for posting anti-American content, but they’re not owed the privilege of an invitation either.
Yeah I fall fairly solidly into the left side of the political spectrum, but I think it’s fine for any country to tell someone seeking a visa to fuck off when you find out that their twitter history is full of them posting pro ISIS memes. Hard pass, my guy.
The one point about this that I find problematic is that a policy like this is all fine and well until the wrong people get in charge of determining what sort of content is grounds for rejection.
And in that context, this article is pretty timely.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/24/trump-religion-immigration/
It isn’t like there is a shortage of people who want to come here. We can afford to be a bit picky.
Like all things moderation. I dont think we really should care in your hypothetical nor do I think if someone says some comment on Twatter ten years ago criticizing a part of US foreign policy that it should be held against him.
That would probably fall under explicit discrimination on the basis of religion, which is going to have more legal protections, though I’m very much not a lawyer.
That gets pretty murky if we’re talking about non resident aliens and also considering how out of wack the current Supreme Court is.
Muslim fine, supporting ISIS not fine. We can worry about the edge cases later.