193
submitted 6 months ago by Blaze@piefed.zip to c/privacy@programming.dev
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

[-] refalo@programming.dev 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I don't see how that even implies that not having a presence in the first place is inherently a red flag...

[-] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

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?

[-] refalo@programming.dev 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I understand how people can infer subjective conclusions, but I don't agree that it objectively says as much.

this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
193 points (99.5% liked)

Privacy

3977 readers
719 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS