11–20 of 355 posts
All the more reason to not have them. Though email addresses? Are they demanding all pen-names too?
It wouldn't surprise me that if in 10 years we all will need to have a minimal social presence to do routine things like travel.
“A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” Immigrants are non-citizens are among the weakest members of American society (an outsize number of laws that impact them and zero capacity to participate in its political machinery)
I can't imagine how much worse it is for people that are forced to travel there for business.
If the United States is trying to isolate itself from the rest of the world it is definitely succeeding.
As a side note, I have not spoken to a tourist from the US on the island where I live in several months. However there is a literal flood of French, German, Chinese, Dutch, Singaporean, etc. Last night I had dinner with an Uzbek and Tanzanian couple.
Where are you guys?
Just filled in ESTA application, it is not demanded as the question regarding social media does not have to be answered.
People of VWP nationalities can apply for true US visas, but for short-term tourist or business visits there's usually no reason for them to bother unless they've been individually denied VWP eligibility or they want one of the few extra procedural rights which come from the visa and not through the VWP.
All of which is to say, maybe they're only asking this horrible new question of true visa applicants and not VWP applicants.
This will have a chilling effect on speech in this country, which is extremely sad. Academic and trade conferences would be best taken elsewhere. And job seekers? Prefer remote. For me as an American, this is, I guess, fine now. I won't be affected right away. But I fully expect other countries to institute reciprocal policies.
1) Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders? 2) Isn't anything that results in a "chilling effect" tantamount to restriction? I expect this will have a chilling effect abroad, among people who travel to the US, more than within the US.
1) Sure, if you're a US Citizen, I don't think non-resident, non-citizens outside of the United States are entitled to any protections
2) That would be my opinion. Maybe a frequent¹ conference speaker¹ with outspoken political views² from a European country could mount a challenge that requiring social media profiles in order to enter the country amounts to a chilling effect and consequent prior restraint on speech in the United States
¹ - The conditions under which a person qualifies for the visa waiver program are complicated
² - I imagine a political dissident or someone equally outspoken who has used anonymous social media profiles to protect their livelihood would have the strongest case
This will have a chilling effect on speech in this country, which is extremely sad. Academic and trade conferences would be best taken elsewhere. And job seekers? Prefer remote. For me as an American, this is, I guess, fine now. I won't be affected right away. But I fully expect other countries to institute reciprocal policies.
1) Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders? 2) Isn't anything that results in a "chilling effect" tantamount to restriction? I expect this will have a chilling effect abroad, among people who travel to the US, more than within the US.
That's the legal rationale for a lot of 'bad behavior' such as PRISM -- they can intercept undersea cable traffic to legally spy on foreigners, as foreigners lack constitutional rights. Nothing new there.
"The State Department regulations say people will have to submit social media names and five years' worth of email addresses and phone numbers . When proposed last year, authorities estimated the proposal would affect 14.7 million people annually." [0] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48486672
(Yeah, I realize that in practice they will probably accept partial compliance in that scenario, and that it won't affect me as a US citizen. But it could certainly affect people I care about.)
I meet a lot of tourists on a daily basis, and I have not heard anyone say they want to visit the United States in a very long time. I can't imagine how much worse it is for people that are forced to travel there for business. If the United States is trying to isolate itself from the rest of the world it is definitely succeeding. As a side note, I have not spoken to a tourist from the US on the island where I live in…
US had the 3rd largest number of tourists in the world in 2017 (after France and Spain). [1]
Though YOY is trending down in Trump years.
All the more reason to not have them. Though email addresses? Are they demanding all pen-names too?
I simply uninstalled all their apps and deleted anything that I had ever posted which wasn’t completely irrelevant. I also deleted almost every picture of myself and prohibited people from ever tagging me.
This way I look like a normal boring guy who likes board games if you glance over my profile, but you couldn’t actually get anything to use against me.
It’s very Orwellian I guess, but it means I never have to explain why I’m not on social media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders? 2) Isn't anything that results in a "chilling effect" tantamount to restriction? I expect this will have a chilling effect abroad, among people who travel to the US, more than within the US.
1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil. That's the legal rationale for a lot of 'bad behavior' such as PRISM -- they can intercept undersea cable traffic to legally spy on foreigners, as foreigners lack constitutional rights. Nothing new there.
So-called unlawful enemy combatants have limited rights and the Supreme Court has upheld all sorts of limitations on the rights of US citizens apprehended in a theater of war, but even foreign citizens have a constitutional right to habeas corpus when apprehended by the government on foreign soil (Boumediene v. Bush).