New US visa rules will force foreign students to unlock social media profiles

Free speech vs. immigration control

• Many argue this contradicts the US’s self-image as “land of free speech,” turning political opinions into de‑facto visa criteria.
• Others counter that entry is a privilege, not a right: countries routinely deny visas arbitrarily, and governments may legitimately screen for “good moral character” or violent extremism.
• A minority explicitly support excluding applicants whose posts advocate violence or overt bigotry; others insist that admitting people with objectionable beliefs is the price of open societies.

Privacy, surveillance & social credit worries

• Requiring applicants to set all accounts to “public” is widely seen as a gross privacy violation, exposing intimate details (health, sexuality, relationships, finances, location) not just to the US but to home governments and data brokers.
• Multiple commenters describe this as the beginning of an American “social credit score,” where non‑conforming views or even lack of social media become suspect.
• Border agents already have broad discretionary power; this is viewed as adding more opaque, unappealable grounds for denial.

Israel, antisemitism, and ideological litmus tests

• The DHS antisemitism screening announcement and State Department definitions are seen as intentionally broad, chilling criticism of Israel.
• Many expect the primary use will be to block pro‑Palestinian or anti‑Israel voices, not to protect minorities (e.g., LGBT people) from hostile entrants.
• Some argue this effectively exports US speech control abroad, making criticism of a foreign government riskier than criticism of the US itself.

Legal and constitutional debate

• Discussion centers on whether First Amendment protections apply to foreigners outside US soil; legally they mostly do not, but critics say this betrays the broader “marketplace of ideas” principle.
• Border search jurisprudence (weaker Fourth Amendment at the border) is cited; using visa denials as punishment for speech is distinguished from searches but still seen as norm‑eroding.

Loopholes, arms race, and definitional disputes

• Many predict an arms race of fake “wholesome” profiles, AI‑generated content, and dual accounts (public scrubbed vs. private real).
• Others note not having social media is already treated as suspicious, putting privacy‑conscious and older people at risk.
• There’s a side debate over what counts as “social media” (forums like HN, GitHub, etc.), with the practical point that authorities can define it however suits them.

Impact on students and US attractiveness

• Commenters foresee fewer foreign students choosing the US, hurting universities and innovation, and accelerating a shift of talent toward Europe and other regions.
• Some still see the US’s economic and academic pull as strong enough that many will comply, especially from poorer or unstable countries, but tourism and marginal cases may drop.