US embassy wants 'every social media username of past five years' for new visas

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Practicality, Privacy, and Risk of Misuse

  • Many say they literally cannot recall “every username of the past five years,” especially throwaway or one‑off accounts, making honest compliance nearly impossible.
  • Requiring accounts to be public is seen as dangerous: it invites scraping and permanent discoverability by employers, governments, harassers, or future political campaigns.
  • People with protected characteristics or histories of online abuse may keep accounts private for safety; the policy is viewed as implicitly excluding such groups.
  • Some worry that having no social media will itself be treated as suspicious, effectively forcing people onto platforms.

Security Justifications vs. Effectiveness

  • Pro‑policy commenters argue:
    • Government would be blamed if a visa holder commits an attack and had obvious extremist posts.
    • Screening social media is analogous to checking luggage; safety of citizens outweighs privacy of visitors.
  • Critics counter:
    • Serious attackers will omit or anonymize incriminating accounts.
    • The U.S. already fails to address far more common domestic violence; this looks symbolic and CYA‑driven.
    • It’s unclear how missing handles could be detected in practice, unless via opaque big‑data surveillance.

Pretext, Leverage, and Authoritarian Drift

  • Many see this as a “pretextual” rule: impossible to follow perfectly, yet available later as a clean legal basis to deny, deport, or detain dissidents.
  • Comparisons are drawn to Russia/China–style vague laws and to “anarcho‑tyranny” or point‑based immigration systems that enable selective enforcement.
  • Several frame it as part of a broader slide toward total control and ideological vetting, first for foreigners, then potentially for citizens.

Impact on Travel, Immigration, and Reciprocity

  • Some say they will cancel trips, conferences, or study plans; others predict reduced tourism and talent inflows, though some argue the U.S. doesn’t “need” tourists.
  • Reciprocity concerns: other countries may mirror this and subject U.S. travelers to similar scrutiny.
  • Others note this specific change currently targets F/M/J education‑related visas and builds on social‑media questions added to DS‑160 since 2018, but fear mission creep.

Definitions and Workarounds

  • Confusion over what counts as “social media”: HN, Reddit, GitHub, messaging apps, personal Mastodon instances, comment sections.
  • Some propose creating sanitized or automated pro‑government accounts; others suggest quitting social media entirely if they might need a U.S. visa.