• 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.