▲ 185 ▼ You Shouldn’t Have to Make Your Social Media Public to Get a Visa (www.eff.org) submitted 1 year ago by Blaze@piefed.zip to c/privacy@programming.dev 19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] IhaveCrabs111@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (8 children) So what happens when you don’t have any? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago (6 children) if applicants ... don’t maintain a social media presence, the government may interpret it as an attempt to evade the requirement or deliberately hide online activity. Presumably it's disqualifying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] refalo@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) I have not seen any language that suggests that, nor what EFF is saying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children) A separate cable, obtained by multiple news outlets, directed embassies and consulates to vet applicants for “hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles” ... Applicants for student and exchange visas will now have their “entire online presence” vetted, per the cable reportedly said. If students refuse to change their accounts to “public” and “limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity.” Seems like a reasonable assumption to me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] refalo@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) I don't see how that even implies that not having a presence in the first place is inherently a red flag... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity Do you really not? Can you not connect the dots between "limited access to, or visibility of, online presence" and not having a social media account? Do you truly not understand how these two things are related? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] refalo@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago* I understand how people can infer subjective conclusions, but I don't agree that it objectively says as much. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago Straight to the gulags permalink fedilink source parent [–] refalo@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) I guess nobody can really know for sure, but in my opinion, if you truly don't have anything, nothing happens, as that's what they want, complacency. I think EFF is just what-ifing things they could theoretically do in the future... which they do a lot. Not saying EFF is bad, but they do speculate a lot. Sometimes it's a good thing though. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago (6 children) if applicants ... don’t maintain a social media presence, the government may interpret it as an attempt to evade the requirement or deliberately hide online activity. Presumably it's disqualifying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] refalo@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) I have not seen any language that suggests that, nor what EFF is saying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children) A separate cable, obtained by multiple news outlets, directed embassies and consulates to vet applicants for “hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles” ... Applicants for student and exchange visas will now have their “entire online presence” vetted, per the cable reportedly said. If students refuse to change their accounts to “public” and “limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity.” Seems like a reasonable assumption to me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] refalo@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) I don't see how that even implies that not having a presence in the first place is inherently a red flag... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity Do you really not? Can you not connect the dots between "limited access to, or visibility of, online presence" and not having a social media account? Do you truly not understand how these two things are related? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] refalo@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago* I understand how people can infer subjective conclusions, but I don't agree that it objectively says as much. permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago Straight to the gulags permalink fedilink source parent
[–] refalo@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) I have not seen any language that suggests that, nor what EFF is saying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children) A separate cable, obtained by multiple news outlets, directed embassies and consulates to vet applicants for “hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles” ... Applicants for student and exchange visas will now have their “entire online presence” vetted, per the cable reportedly said. If students refuse to change their accounts to “public” and “limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity.” Seems like a reasonable assumption to me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] refalo@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) I don't see how that even implies that not having a presence in the first place is inherently a red flag... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity Do you really not? Can you not connect the dots between "limited access to, or visibility of, online presence" and not having a social media account? Do you truly not understand how these two things are related? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] refalo@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago* I understand how people can infer subjective conclusions, but I don't agree that it objectively says as much. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children) A separate cable, obtained by multiple news outlets, directed embassies and consulates to vet applicants for “hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles” ... Applicants for student and exchange visas will now have their “entire online presence” vetted, per the cable reportedly said. If students refuse to change their accounts to “public” and “limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity.” Seems like a reasonable assumption to me permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] refalo@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) I don't see how that even implies that not having a presence in the first place is inherently a red flag... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity Do you really not? Can you not connect the dots between "limited access to, or visibility of, online presence" and not having a social media account? Do you truly not understand how these two things are related? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] refalo@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago* I understand how people can infer subjective conclusions, but I don't agree that it objectively says as much. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] refalo@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) I don't see how that even implies that not having a presence in the first place is inherently a red flag... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity Do you really not? Can you not connect the dots between "limited access to, or visibility of, online presence" and not having a social media account? Do you truly not understand how these two things are related? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] refalo@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago* I understand how people can infer subjective conclusions, but I don't agree that it objectively says as much. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity Do you really not? Can you not connect the dots between "limited access to, or visibility of, online presence" and not having a social media account? Do you truly not understand how these two things are related? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] refalo@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago* I understand how people can infer subjective conclusions, but I don't agree that it objectively says as much. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] refalo@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago* I understand how people can infer subjective conclusions, but I don't agree that it objectively says as much. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago Straight to the gulags permalink fedilink source parent
[–] refalo@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) I guess nobody can really know for sure, but in my opinion, if you truly don't have anything, nothing happens, as that's what they want, complacency. I think EFF is just what-ifing things they could theoretically do in the future... which they do a lot. Not saying EFF is bad, but they do speculate a lot. Sometimes it's a good thing though. permalink fedilink source parent