State Department to deny visas to fact checkers and others, citing 'censorship'
npr.org156 points by seattle_spring 5 hours ago
156 points by seattle_spring 5 hours ago
I'm not commenting on US fact checkers but the concept made its way to my country of origin some time ago. As I suspected, it turned out to be completely biased, often ignoring or softening the controversial topics that affect their side. It's the same old journalism trick where they claim to be neutral and dedicated to the truth but in reality they all have their own agendas, which seems unavoidable (nowadays or since forever?). The main issue is people believing that their favorite fact checker is the most neutral and thus using their content as absolute truths.
Glad to see that the concept is now completely unpopular in my country and we're back to the usual terrible journalism where there's no controversy in stating that.
The most ironic thing to me is the amount of coddling these self-purported “strong men” need. The idea that someone wouldn’t blindly accept what they say is enough to throw their egos into self-protection mode.
Sad
The most ironic thing to me is just how fast the political pendulum swings.
One day you have kente cloths and taking the knee everywhere, and before you know it, right-winger bloggers are running the law enforcement.
This is no way to live, 80%+ of the population is neither committed progressives nor committed conservatives/reactionaries, but they rule (or ruled) the social networks and thus dominate(d) in elections.
By the grace of the algorithm, you majesty the king.
There's nothing more dangerous to dictatorships than the truth, so it's only logical.
That's insane.
I started Ask Me Anything on reddit, does being a moderator in that capacity mean I limited free speech of Americans?
As nutty as it may seem - All moderation is part of the “censorship industrial complex”.
Frankly this was inevitable. There is a reckoning that has been put off, within the groups that champion free speech. Mods happen to be the people who see how the sausage is made, but have no real ability to be heard.
The Zeitgeist is still happy to say “censorship bad”, thus moderation bad. The work of ensuring “healthy” communities or debate is left to the magic of the “market place of ideas”.
Except the market place is well and truly broken, captured and unfair for regular users. We have a dark forest for content consumers.
This conversation needs to be had.
Edit: tried to make the tone less frustrated.
We need to have a serious conversation about the pros and cons of anonymity on public online forums. It’s objectively an unnatural form of communication, most of us see the harm, but we also don’t want to swing towards mass surveillance(which is a very real risk).
Plenty of people are happy to publish calls for war crimes in the newspapers under their own name, or on the Secretary for Defence letterhead.
Any form of communication other than grunting and howling from trees is "objectively an unnatural form of communication."
Attaching your real world identity to every interaction you have on the internet is no more objectively natural than doing otherwise, and more of a burden than we place on interactions in the real world. I don't exchange my drivers license and SSL with everyone I talk to.
We don't need to have the serious conversation, we've had it, and the false dichotomy you're presenting here is invalid. We don't have to choose one or the other. Anonymity has been well established in every free society as legally and morally defensible and a necessity for free speech and a free state for decades, to the point of including some degree of anonymity from one's own government.
Moderation beyond strictly legal content is acceptable. Anonymity is also acceptable. 4chan can be 4chan, and other places can not be 4chan. Free speech does not guarantee you a platform, much less all platforms. It doesn't require me to put a target on my back, either.
The dystopian surveillance state is already here: https://youtu.be/Pp9MwZkHiMQ
> It’s objectively an unnatural form of communication
Communication with people half the way across the globe at the speed of light is objectively unnatural too, should we ban that? There's no "we" calling for the end of online anonymity excepts for spooks and people who believe people should be identified and punished for expressing opinions they disagree with.
Mildly amusing if true, but I can't help but notice that some things the article mentions, like "fact-checking", are never in fact a direct quote from the supposed memo.
Is it so hard to reproduce the entire damn thing so readers can form their own opinion of what it says?
How are we supposed to fact-check this!
"Face checker" is such an Orwellian term, and right enough, in many cases, they are pushing subjective interpretations and their own biases for someone, rather than solid facts.
They’re also forcing visa applicants to share their social media publicly, like the authoritarian America is supposed to be better than:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/a...
Guess I'm not getting in as someone having no social media. Not that I'd want to.
To be a bit more precise:
Asking people for their social media accounts is not new, it's a part of the visa application process since Trump's first term.
What's new is that now on top of that, they're asking people for those social media accounts to be public.
I don't have any "social media" accounts. I guess they won't believe me, and would deny me a visa based on the assumption that I am lying.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
(I have family and lots of close friends in the US. I miss them all. But I don't intend to visit given the way things are over there these days. _Maybe_ after the next administration change? Depending on how things change? But I've come to accept I may never visit again.)
I only have bluesky with only work posts, nothing else. I've gotten a visa in last few months. Even though I never went because of the situation. Needed to get a visa for potential work related stuff which eventually could be worked around.
Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-orders... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46151466)
Would be nice to see the actual wording in the cable, but I suppose Reuters are not allowed to publish that; we get a cable paraphrasing a cable.
The land of the free and the home of the brave. Of course free, as long as you want to shoot school children, not if you want to openly express yourself. Brave as long as it's a defenceless third world country, terrified, if it is someone who is transgender or intersex or free thinking or compassionate or not Trump supporting or not Israel supporting..... And so on.
Is fact checker an actual job?
In serious news organizations, absolutely. Journalists write the stories, fact checkers make sure every claim is backed up by evidence before it gets published.
To describe their job poorly, they're there as a way of reducing odds of a lawsuit. At one of my previous jobs, there was a whole fact-checking team that wrote no stories themselves, but every story had to be run through them as a part of the publishing pipeline.
I see errors all the time in mainstream media. Sometimes these appear from some kind of info file that they raid every time they have to look up a subject, so the same information is quoted again and again (even if inaccurate). A lot of things in life are subjective and open to interpretation, especially when it comes to politics and culture.
Mainstream != serious. In fact it's quite the opposite, as serious news organizations cannot match the output of mainstream news. Even one story per month is a success for many.
In serious news organizations, there's quite a few steps between a journalist writing a draft and that draft being published. Fact-checking is one of them, having a competent "boss" (called an editor) is another.
Most news orgs have both a "serious" department and a "publish as much as possible" department, with far different requirements. In general, if you're publishing something along the lines of "X said Y", you don't need a rigorous process. If you're doing an investigation in which you're accusing someone of doing something illegal, then you need a far more rigorous process, otherwise you'd be sued out of existence pretty quickly.
Of course, having a rigorous process doesn't mean you won't get sued at all, but there's a term for that: SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation).
Yes, there are many situations where it would be illegal or detrimental to publish falsehoods, so people are implied to check facts.
Now it's turning into a situation where it's illegal or detrimental to publish the truth.
Big press outlets have been publishing fibs of one kind and a other since as long as I can remember. A certain Australian's newspapers have had problematic statements in them for decades.
> problematic
This is so vague as to be meaningless.
Like, of course it's "problematic", that's why you're talking about it. Be more specific or it sounds like an applause light.
To show the outside view: I'm thinking of a recent (pointless) discussion I had, it's akin to when people who hate asylum seekers say most of those asylum seekers are "fighting age": of course most of them are, very few others are fit enough to make the trip.
(If I judge you right from a very short comment, you'd describe the phrase "fighting age" as itself "problematic"?)
Only the wrong sort of truth.
It"s a stepping stone on the way to make it illegal to refuse to publish the "right" sort of lies.
Never thought dystopian novels would be so on the nose. I always thought they were being extra for the sake of art...
Extremely on brand activity for a group of fraudsters who managed to lie their way into power via a firehose of misinformation.
With the given topic, might be more accurate to describe the group of fraudsters as a group of fascists.
I mean, that was free speech advocates and centrist (read pro-right but pretend not to) position position for years.
Typical free speech advocate was considering criticism, fact checking and mockery of right to be attack on free speech for years now. Even in HN, you frequently seen the definition of free speech as "dont mind nazi speech and is actively helping nazi when they are in trouble". It never applied to nazi opposition.
This entire thread is emblematic of the type of willful ignorance that seems to permeate certain HN discussions going back quite a few years. A full display of ignorant outrage for all to see.
First, this dates back to MAY of this year. Nothing new.
Second, it is obvious that nobody took the time to research, read the policy and understand it. Most comments are nonsense based on a complete lack of context.
Finally,
The restrictions apply to foreign nationals who are involved in:
- Issuing or threatening legal action, such as arrest warrants, against US citizens or residents for social media posts made while they are physically present on US soil.
So, any foreign official or person who threatens to, for example, arrest a US citizen based on what you post online WHILE YOU ARE IN THE US will be denied a visa.
What's your objection to this?
- Demanding that US tech platforms adopt content moderation policies or engage in censorship that extends beyond the foreign government's jurisdiction and affects protected speech in the US.
Someone not from the US who tries to censor you in the US and beyond the limits of their own national jurisdiction will be denied a visa. Or, government officials in Peru demanding that HN prevent you from posting your drivel while in the US (outside their government's jurisdiction) will be denied a visa.
What's your objection to this one?
- Directing or participating in content moderation initiatives or "fact-checking" that the US administration considers a form of censorship of Americans' speech.
Anyone that, from foreign soil, attempts to limit your right to free speech in the US while hiding under the "fact checking" or "content moderation" excuse will be denied a visa. Remember that your constitutional right of free speech in the US does not come with a fact-checking or content moderation limitation. As this thread easily demonstrates, you can post absolutely nonsense, lies and distortions and you would be protected. Fact-checking isn't a magical tool that allows someone to bypass constitutional rights to silence someone else.
What's your problem with this?
Of course, there are nuanced and not so nuanced elements to what constitutes free speech, where and under what circumstances. The key here is that outsiders don't get to mess with it or try to arrest you for this right you have in the US. If they do try, it's OK, they just can't get a visa to come here. Small price to pay.
So, yeah, nothing to see here. This is actually good. It means someone who, from, for example, Poland, acts to affect your free speech rights in the US or have you arrested while you visit Europe for something you posted online while in the US will not be allowed to come into the US.
Stop being lazy and ignorant. Take the time to research, read and understand before forming ideas and, worse, opening your mouth.
This makes me happy.
What would make me even more happy is if we linked our foreign policy, especially our trade and aid policies, to align with our Constitution.
Other governments can do what they want, but we should prefer to interact with governments that share our values, and we should not reward or prefer governments that don’t.
The hypocrisy https://www.heise.de/en/news/How-a-French-judge-was-digitall...
(A french judge was cut off by most US servies, because trump didn't like his ruling. One could say trump.... censored him)
ICC judge, the fact that he's French didn't have an impact. He's also far from being the only one.
In fact, the Executive Order that imposed these sanctions is very broad and gives "immunity" to pretty much everyone affiliated with the US. If the ICC tries to prosecute anyone from NATO or anyone from a "major non-NATO ally" (Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), the current administration will put sanctions on those judges.
So there's 40 or so countries whose governments are effectively "immune" from being prosecuted from the ICC, but the president has authority to add literally any country to that list.
I'm looking forward to the reaction from the public when he adds Russia to that list.
It will, no doubt, be every bit as effective as the "thoughts and prayers" that follow the weekly school shootings that no other nation on earth have.
It would be quite unfortunate if the next government thinks your opinion is wrongthink.
I don't like the idea of "fact checking" as a job or position but denying Visas to people like this is a horrible idea that sets a bad precedent.
> our values
What values are those exactly? Because the current administration doesn't seem to be representing the values expressed in the American founding documents, or the values held by a majority of Americans, very well at all. In many ways, they're diametrically opposed to those values.
Values are case-by-case basis depending if trump (GOP?) likes something (most like got paid cash) or not.
Case in point - full pardon for former Honduran president on drug trafficking, while at the same time they are trying to use drug trafficking as pretext on war with Venezuela.
Same thing with arabs/muslims/immigrants being bad (look at how they were during Mamdami campaign), though literal al-Qaeda members and murderers acting as arabian royalty are "great leaders" and "things (murders) happen".
Even on "simpler" issues like family values - they preach against queers, about "traditional family values", kids, etc. But most of them have 3+ divorces, multiple kids that they don't take care of, imported/immigrant trophy wives, numerous scandals of adultery, while destroying policies for children education/health/food, etc.
You say that, but over the past decade he's got around 50 percent of the vote. Like it or not, this is what America is.
That distancing is weird and worrisome. They voted for this bullshit, twice. Now they act surprised and distancing themselves from their politics while the whole country falls
And the previous election he lost by a whisker. America has been lapping this up for a decade now.
Our values are whatever Trump says they should be!
An interviewer asked Trump in 2016 how people will know that America is great again. He replied: “cause I’m gonna tell em”. :)
When people say “our values” or “Western values”, it’s just a made up term that means European Christian values. When it should mean classically liberal values.
Always took it to be synonymous with "enlightenment values", created in Europe and by Christians. (Who I believe were at least somewhat secular). I am unsure if we are, at present, a bastion of said values.
Christianity does not necessary implies fascism. And "our values" or "western values" here in this context do.
Pope is not like Vance, despite Vance pointificating about by values and pope beong christan.
> "Trust and safety is a broad practice which includes critical and life-saving work to protect children and stop CSAM [child sexual abuse material], as well as preventing fraud, scams, and sextortion. T&S workers are focused on making the internet a safer and better place, not censoring just for the sake of it"
Definitely weird to be "happy" that the government is cracking down on people who help prevent the propagation of fraud, scams, and CSAM.
"If you uncover evidence an applicant was responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship of protected expression in the United States, you should pursue a finding that the applicant is ineligible"
If that sentence from the article is accurate, the parent poster's response makes complete and perfect sense. You don't have to like the current administration, to like a specific thing they are doing.
Now is this actually what is happening? I don't know. And of course, that's a different conversation, and not what the parent poster was talking about.
The problem is that this administration and their ilk have incompetently misinterpreted 'censorship' to mean 'not letting random strangers use your private property to publish things you don't want them to.'
The only way "an applicant was responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship in the United States" would be if they were an employee of the US government and they somehow violated US law to enact censorship.
To review: censorship is when the government doesn't allow you to say things with your printing press. Censorship is not when private parties don't let you use their printing press.
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor#dictionary...
> censor (verb): to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable.
> also: to suppress or delete as objectionable
Government censorship is a very notable class of censorship, but the word has a broader meaning.
In the context of the Constitution, government censorship is the only thing that the United States cares about.
If we valued banning all censorship we'd make laws banning that. We don't: we value private property and free speech instead. Taking the rights of private parties to control what they publish tramples both of those rights. It's not complicated: you have a right to own your 'press' and do whatever you want with it. You don't have a right to someone else's press.
Censorship is free speech?
No they are saying choosing what to publish or not is part of private property rights.
If I was on a telephone call which selectively declined to transmit certain words or topics to the receiving party, I would consider that a form of censorship, even if it wasn't the government doing it.
Just use a different system that didn't do that, it's your choice.
To that extent, government censorship isn't really censorship either then? You can just move to a different country that doesn't censor you.
Displaying Nazi symbols is allowed (protected) in the United States, but prohibited in Germany. Does that mean that any German person involved in enforcing pr even tangentially acting on that restriction would be ineligible for a U.S visa?
Obviously that is what the great leader wants for the greatest and most free country on all the earth
Is this the foreign service officers or USCIS? iirc foreign service officers have pretty wide latitude on visa approval (whose really making sure they’re checking deeply?) and have 100 other more important factors to evaluate so if that’s the case; will this really amount to many denials?
Except they're under pressure to not exercise such wide latitude. A few months ago, many who had already passed the exam and were just awaiting placement found out they would have to retake the exam, a different one more to the liking of the current administration:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46156979
98% of current foreign service officers who responded to a survey said morale is lower, plus the administration is laying off 1300 of them:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/02/us/politics/state-departm...
Those things are not protected expression in the US.
Then why is the state department telling to deny visas to people who worked on Trust & Safety at social media cos?
(Answer: they don't care about protected expression or pesky laws, they are lawless and reward other lawless types like themselves)
> Definitely weird to be "happy" that the government is cracking down on people who help prevent the propagation of CSAM.
I mean... This is HN... You should see people's reaction when Apple decided to do something about it...
Apple wanted to scan pictures stored on our phones using a perceptual diff algorithm and compare them by similarity to known CSAM. So basically there’s a world out there where the baby bath pics your wife took will get flagged and she’ll have to prove she’s not a predator.