
Twitter, Reddit support challenge of visa applicant social media requirement - cglong
https://knightcolumbia.org/content/twitter-reddit-file-in-support-of-lawsuit-challenging-us-governments-social-media-registration-requirement-for-visa-applicants
======
1cvmask
This already exists with rubber stamp FISA courts (a rejection rate of 0.03
percent) for citizens and non-citizens. It is just a difference of degree and
scale (the APIization of everything).

There are also other workarounds to FISA courts including the “willful“
volunteering of information and tools (or else), using the NSA and their
tools, and other foreign “friendly” collaborators like the Five Eyes, or
German intelligence etc...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes)

[https://www.dw.com/en/report-us-germany-spied-on-
countries-f...](https://www.dw.com/en/report-us-germany-spied-on-countries-
for-decades-via-swiss-encryption-firm/a-52344255)

[https://www.rt.com/usa/qwest-ceo-nsa-jail-604/](https://www.rt.com/usa/qwest-
ceo-nsa-jail-604/)

Here is some details on historical spying (a much smaller scale because of the
smaller digital footprint)for the curious:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee)

~~~
ciarannolan
>a rejection rate of 0.03 percent

I agree that this is too low and is a sign of rubber stamp-iness, but what
would be the right rejection rate to make you feel more comfortable about the
FISA process?

Agencies come to the court with what they think is a rock solid case, so it's
not entirely outrageous that the court would have a very high approval rate.
See other similar stats like the conviction rate by federal prosecutors
(93%+), where they only drag a defendant into court with very good reason.

~~~
rurp
> Agencies come to the court with what they think is a rock solid case

I think the rubber stamp reputation of the FISA courts undermines this
assumption. Are 99.7% of cases ~really~ ironclad? Building a rock solid case
takes a lot of work and if the FISA courts aren't actually going to scrutinize
the evidence, I expect that the people bringing these cases will take
advantage of that.

~~~
modoc
Having worked with people who bring cases to FISA, they spend a ton of time
ensuring they are ironclad before they bother bringing them to FISA.

Previously I had assumed it was a lot of rubber-stamping, however the folks I
worked with frequently bemoaned about how incredibly difficult and time
consuming it was to get a FISA warrant.

~~~
ciarannolan
I will assume good faith in your comment. I don't think you were "fed lies" or
that there's some soros deep state conspiracy going on.

That being said, the approval rate for the court is pretty shocking. If this
isn't a rubber stamp court, I don't know what is. Their approval rate on
41,000+ warrants in 40+ years is 99.97%.

I don't think the notion that each of those 41,000+ warrants were air tight,
or wouldn't be rejected by other normal (read: public, transparent,
democratic) courts, passes the smell test.

I would be curious to know what the approval rate for regular search/arrest
warrants is too.

------
thaumasiotes
And people said I was crazy to claim that challenges are mounted to US laws
based on the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad.

~~~
klipt
Foreigners living in the US also have to renew their visas or even green
cards. Do you think giving USCIS their social media accounts doesn't have a
chilling effect on their ability to criticize the government?

Should green card holders not be allowed to criticize the government?

------
Marsymars
If I'm ever required to provide social media handles when entering the USA,
I'll be deleting any relevant social media accounts.

~~~
cbhl
The current rules for immigrants require " _any_ account names ... over the
_previous five years_ " so an immigrant could be denied entry for failing to
provide the account name for a deleted account.

~~~
verganileonardo
What if I delete the entire content?

~~~
Lammy
Did you also delete the copy stored in NSA’s Utah Data Center?

------
null0pointer
I hadn't heard about this law. Seems it came into effect after I last filed a
DS-160 in June 2019. Can anyone provide a reasonable justification for any
non-nefarious reason for requiring the social media handles of all visa
applicants?

It seems pointless at best. Downright evil at worst.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
You might be Facebook friends with someone linked to terrorism, or you might
have Liked posts from terrorism-linked groups. Or maybe there's a specific
person who the government suspects has recently joined on with some terrorist
cell, and if you're their Facebook friend, that is likely fairly interesting
to some investigators.

I don't expect that this sort of question catches a lot of serious terrorists,
but if they don't ask, you come blow something up, and you did have such
immediately discoverable information on social media, it'd be really bad press
for the folks who are supposed to stop that sort of thing.

I don't think it's a particularly controversial statement that lots of extra
information about who you know and what your interests are would be at least a
mildly useful signal for determining if you're a threat, but I doubt it's
worth the intrusion and the risk of more nefarious uses.

------
paulgb
It seems like 90% of the comments here didn't read the article and think it
has to do with section 230, which Twitter is also in the news for right now.

Regardless of how you feel about their moderation policies, if you care about
free speech you should at least be on their side with this one. Requesting
social media handles from visa applicants does chill speech. As a visa holder,
I've thought long and hard over whether I should post political comments or
photos from protests on social media. If you truly care about free speech, be
consistent and care about that too.

~~~
ur-whale
> As a visa holder, I've thought long and hard over whether I should post
> political comments or photos from protests on social media.

You should consider using Tor. It was first and foremost designed for this
very purpose.

~~~
paranoidrobot
Using Tor doesn't really change much.

You are still left with a choice:

a - give up your details when required to do so by the government.

b - lie on a government form and/or to a government official

If you choose b, then at any point in the future it's discovered that you did
lie, then this can make life very very difficult. Not only can your Visa be
cancelled, it can mean you're never again able to visit the US. It means
uprooting your entire life to return to the country you were born in.

There's been plenty of stories, some posted here, where this has happened to
someone who either through a mistake, or even no fault of their own - has
ended up in hot water and their Visa withdrawn.

Using Tor and successfully remaining truly anonymous are non-trivial things,
and endangering your livelihood and ability to remain in the US is a large
risk.

This ignores the genuine possibility of prosecution for making false
statements and/or lying to a government official.

------
not_a_moth
Nice PR move, tacking onto a lawsuit from a year ago in support of free
speech.

That aside I personally think Reddit has far more serious speech challenges to
overcome than Twitter. It's too easy to manipulate certain viewpoint to always
appear on the front page. Especially blatant during election years. Too weird
for me to visit.

~~~
nilkn
I enjoy Reddit when logged in and unsubscribed from all the large default
subreddits. I’m always shocked at how different it is when I accidentally view
it logged out. The home page feels almost like a piece of carefully curated
political performance art in order to somehow get a result allegedly from
folks across the nation that is so perfectly aligned with a very specific
agenda and advertising platform.

~~~
panpanna
Certain subs are heavily curated. You will immediately get banned if you go
against the mods view of the world. And they do this to even the most innocent
posts.

If you are used to these subs, as soon as you leave your perfect bubble you
will see a Reddit full of (to your eyes) lies and deception. Of course the
same applies to outsiders visiting your sub, they will be shocked by the
amount of lies casually presented as facts.

That's why everyone should subscribe to at least two subreddits they don't
agree with.

~~~
throw_m239339
> That's why everyone should subscribe to at least two subreddits they don't
> agree with.

Certain subs will automatically ban you if you ever participate in another sub
mods of the former sub do not like. r_offmychest will automatically ban you at
the first comment for instance.

This very thing does prevent good faith people from participating in subs that
are antagonistic.

It's against reddit rules but admins do no care. Admins do not care about
brigading either (a sub encouraging the harassment of another sub or person),
unless some specific subs/users are victim. r_ch* p* tr* ph* * s* regularly
engaged in the bullying of users and subs until they attacked the wrong person
and got quarantined.

I don't care what the rules are, only that they are enforced very differently
depending on who violates them and who is the victim.

~~~
saagarjha
> r_ch* p* tr* ph* * s* regularly engaged in the bullying of users and subs
> until they attacked the wrong person and got quarantined.

I'll admit I don't really understand the practice of censoring things that
aren't clearly swear words from context, but in this case you've censored it
so much (and I suspect thrown in spaces so Hacker News doesn't italicize bits
of it) that I really have no idea what you're talking about.

~~~
cc-d
I frequently read the specific sub he censored, and even I could not decipher
the name initially.

The sub is chapotraphouse, based upon the podcast of the same name. I've never
listened to the podcast, I tried once and within a few minutes found it
obnoxious. As somebody interested in political theory/history/whatever label
you want to apply to "the study of power structures", I often find the
perspective of the sub interesting, and can usually be summed up as "21st
century communists in America".

------
7leafer
So if I don't have any accounts in sociopathological networks, will the morons
deny my visa? What a br.., I mean, a cowardly new world!

~~~
kube-system
> Visa applicants who have never used social media will not be refused on the
> basis of failing to provide a social media identifier, and the form does
> allow the applicant to respond with "None."

[https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Enhanced%20Vettin...](https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Enhanced%20Vetting/CA%20-%20FAQs%20on%20Social%20Media%20Collection%20-%206-4-2019%20\(v.2\).pdf)

~~~
grishka
So if you do respond with "none", how would they know you do actually have
social media accounts?

~~~
gpm
Chances are they wouldn't (if you were reasonably cautious with, e.g., your
phone). But if they find out you don't later they can throw you in jail and
deport you. Lying to federal officers while getting a visa over something as
innocuous as a social media account really doesn't seem to be worth it under
basically any circumstances.

------
badrabbit
How would a decentralized platform be registered?

Things are about to get insane when they start banning foreign social media!

~~~
nkozyra
Which is decentralized? Certainly not Reddit.

And it isn't about the "platform" being registered, it's about users:

> that require nearly all visa applicants to register their social media
> handles with the U.S. government and connected policies permitting the
> retention and dissemination of that information.

~~~
badrabbit
Mastodon,activitypub

------
fareesh
The newspaper and news channel can be held liable for what they publish. If
social media companies want to editorialize the content that users are seeing
then they are no longer a platform, and they should play by the same rules as
the newspapers and news channels.

They could always choose not to do that and allow users to post whatever they
like, within the bounds of the law.

Again, this only came up because Twitter is taking an active role in the
election process. The election process is adversarial. There is already
someone on Twitter who can hold a candidate accountable - their opponent.
Twitter can just pin Joe Biden's reply and fact check below any Trump tweet
and vice versa. Instead they have chosen to insert a platform specific feature
to qualify what someone else is publishing. Their insertion is not accountable
to anyone, and as such can be constituted as a canonical truth. If they apply
their insertions selectively, then they are basically manipulating the
audience. If this is allowed then you no longer have a democracy. The social
media platform will just pick your winner.

~~~
mikro2nd
False argument. News organisations exercise editorial, budgetary and
managerial control over the reporters they hire to investigate and write the
news they report. There is a tradition/expectation (sadly in very poor
condition in these times, better/worse for some media organisations) of fact-
checking _before_ publication, with editor oversight of that investigative
process.

This is not, and can not be the case for social-media platforms.

Drawing any equivalency between the two is simply bogus.

------
klmadfejno
I've seen many people discuss how this ruling could kill small internet
communities. Curious how people would react to simply making a separate class
for excessively large websites that are effectively public spaces due to scale
and likelihood of frequent encounter.

~~~
newsheist
Public spaces? It’s platform or publisher, you can’t have your cake and eat it
too.

~~~
klmadfejno
That only feels problematic if you're a huge company, which is exactly my
point. If you're a small forum, I don't see any problem with you playing both
roles.

------
trashburger
It's not like these companies particularly care about the First Amendment,
seeing their actions when it comes to things protected by 1A but too icky for
their platforms. I expect a blog post(s) to come out of this containing the
words "As $COMPANY, we believe the right to freedom of expressing yourself."
Bonus points if they include the term "responsible speech".

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _not like these companies particularly care about the First Amendment_

Free speech versus the First Amendment.

One can believe private platforms have the right to regulate their content
while holding the government doesn’t.

~~~
Hermel
Of course, Reddit has the right to fight for free speech while at the same
time suppressing it on its own platform, or at least tolerating the
suppression of a free discourse in the most popular subreddit. But doing so
makes it seem reddit cares first and foremost about its own freedom, and less
about freedom of speech in general. It also means reddit is a poor choice if
you want to run a forum that leans conservative.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _doing so makes it seem reddit cares first and foremost about its own
> freedom, and less about freedom of speech in general_

It’s a company. Of course that’s its motive. I’d argue this is true for most
people, too.

Which is fine. It is incumbent upon those users whose free speech Reddit
impinges upon to rectify the situation, but bringing other users to support
their cause or setting up a competitor.

Either way, this is all orthogonal to the First Amendment concern of this
case.

------
nojito
Ah yes...two websites that do not and will never become profitable.

I hope everyone realizes that this was never about free speech and everything
about cost avoidance.

~~~
marcinzm
Twitter has been profitable or neutral for over a year now. It's a public
company, you can Google their finances.

------
egberts1
This is E.O., and not about FCC Section 230.

Court case filing is here: [https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-
content/up...](https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/CRF_amicus_Knight_v_Trump.pdf)

It boils down to who has the right to block users. And how to regulate such
blocking of online users and by who.

That’s the gist of it.

What we are seeing by Coolidge-Reagan Foundation is long-tail legal fight to
keep the First Amendment from eroding on the Internet.

------
alexmingoia
Good. The entire visa system is unconstitutional and a violation of human
rights. Anything that curtails it is a victory for freedom.

~~~
nine_k
What articles of the Constitution does the visa system contradict?

~~~
alexmingoia
The 10th amendment. Nowhere in the constitution is the Federal government
granted power to restrict non-citizens from movement or employment. The
constitution only delegates to the Federal government the power to determine
rules for naturalization.

You might find useful this overview of the unconstitutionality of Federal
immigration restrictions: [https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/12/13/the-
constitution...](https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/12/13/the-
constitutional-solution-to-immigration/)

~~~
bagacrap
My understanding of the Constitution is that it sets limits on government
power, e.g. it can't pass a law that restricts free speech. It does not
enumerate all the things the federal government may do.

~~~
alexmingoia
One of those limits (10th amendment) is all powers not enumerated by the
constitution are left to the states or the people.

It’s ironic that one of the original grievances in the Declaration of
Independence was the king restricting immigration to the colonies.

Freedom of movement is a common law right going back to the Magna Carta: _It
shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and
to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to
us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of
the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the
land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who
shall be treated as it is said above._

------
mfer
This shows a double sided approach to the services like Twitter and Reddit.

The social media companies argue they are not common spaces where free speech
is required. This way they can moderate as they choose. It serves them.

But, they also argue that visa applicants sharing their social media details
chills first amendment free speech.

The social media companies are inconsistent here and it appears they are
looking out for their best financial interests.

~~~
nightcracker
No it's not inconsistent. You simply do not understand.

The first amendment protects you from censorship _by the government_ :

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The social media companies argue they are not common spaces so they can
maintain 'jurisdiction' over their own sites. This isn't related to the first
amendment at all, as they are not a government entity.

Being asked to share social media __does __chill first amendment free speech,
because it 's _the government_ that gets to see everything you do and say
online and thus there is an incentive to self-censor in fear of later
retaliation.

The whole point of the first amendment isn't that you can say anything you
want at any time anywhere, it's that you don't have to fear retaliation from
the government.

But let's assume that your issue is with 'free speech' online in general, not
just in the context of the first amendment. Then there is still a huge
difference between the two.

If, say, Reddit censors the speech you wish to spread, you don't suffer any
consequences beyond being unable to use Reddit as your platform. You're free
to use any other social media to spread your message.

If the government requests all social media accounts your speech is chilled
_everywhere_ , effectively censoring you, the person.

~~~
mfer
You make a good point on the difference in censorship.

One thing has to do with government. It isn't "the government" but rather then
"United States government". The individuals involved in this process are in
other countries currently under the jurisdiction of non-US governments.

Your argument is that as part of the process to let people from other
governmental jurisdictions into the US, the US government should not look at
what those individuals say in public because it might lead to them to self-
sensor.

> If the government requests all social media accounts your speech is chilled
> everywhere, effectively censoring you, the person.

If the US government looks at your social media and you live, for example in
South Africa, you aren't censored as a person everywhere. That person lives in
South Africa and not the US. That person may not gain entrance to the US. But,
they as a person are not censored everywhere.

I point this out because _the government_ is often used where there are many
governments instead of one. If there were a one world government the argument
about censoring a person would be true. But, there currently isn't.

Do you think the US government should not look at what people publicly say as
part of their entrance criteria to the US? If so, what about those people who
publicly say they want to harm an individual or group of people? Should what
they say not be considered for entrance? The US government has a
responsibility to protect it's individuals as part of the entrance selection
criteria to the US.

~~~
nightcracker
> Do you think the US government should not look at what people publicly say
> as part of their entrance criteria to the US? If so, what about those people
> who publicly say they want to harm an individual or group of people? Should
> what they say not be considered for entrance? The US government has a
> responsibility to protect it's individuals as part of the entrance selection
> criteria to the US.

It's the endless debate of security v.s. privacy and potential abuse of
policy. Governments across the globe are trying to use the technology boom as
an opportunity to redefine the borders on this topic that I believe were
perfectly fine before. And it's all smoke and mirrors to distract from the
fact that it's just literally 'because technology'.

Example 1: the postal service opening your mail is a big no-no without a
warrant, but suddenly 'because technology' it's okay to do to internet
traffic?

Example 2: Two people having a private conversation has been possible since
the dawn of time, but suddenly 'because technology' the government has the
inalienable right to eavesdrop and backdoor every conversation at any time?

Example 3: The right to not self-incriminate is incredibly important, but
suddenly 'because technology' you can be forced to give up encryption keys and
open laptops using information that only exists in your head, or risk being
detained indefinitely?

I believe that if your argument boils down to 'it's X but with technology'
then the government shouldn't have any extra rights or deny any of yours.

I personally think the real issue with the social media border inspection is
the self-incrimination and possibly warrentless searches.

I don't have an issue with a border agent looking you up on Facebook, finding
your public profile and seeing you posted messages inciting violence against
gays, and denying you entry. I do have issues with the government forcing
Facebook to give up private messages without a warrant.

I also have a problem with you being forced to divulge all your social media
accounts or risk being denied entry based on the fact that you lied. This is
just plain self-incrimination.

~~~
mfer
You bring out some good issues. Three things come out to me...

1\. What we post through most social media platforms is direct messages rather
than private messages. It's a subtle semantic difference but an important one.
The things we say there isn't private. I remember reading about banks getting
access to direct messages on FB. I'm not suggesting governments should pilfer
this information. I am suggesting we should not have an expectation of
privacy.

2\. There is a semantic difference between "because technology" being used to
avoid warrants and a government looking at what one says in public. I think
this is important because pushing for and informing the public on one does not
inform or solve the other. The "because technology" angle needs far more
general society discussion.

3\. There is another angle to the security/privacy discussion. In order to
keep privacy one may need to not engage with certain things in certain ways.
For example, if I don't want my neighbors to know what I'm doing in my yard I
need to live in a place with a natural boundary, like a rural area. Being in a
rural area means I'm not living in a city. It's a trade-off and always has
been.

I totally understand the issue with abuse and the 'because technology'
situation.

