• ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

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