I think it's all some level of FUD until there's an example of it being called out as a reason for denial. The fields have been on the application for a while, but I know someone who recently came in with a private ig profile and a vk profile that hadn't been used for anything but chat. Wasn't mentioned at all along the process beyond being on the application.
That may change soon, but it also might just be rhetoric from dipshits playing to their dipshit base.
Fair enough, though that's an ask from the State Dept., not a demand from the embassy, as indicated in the OP. It's an important distinction because the embassy holds the authority at that point in the process. They can ignore the guidance altogether or demand everyone open their profiles. They're probably more likely to do the latter now, but they could've done this two years ago too.
Demanding the usernames for the past 5 years and being suspect of anyone not on social media isn't a new, that was my main point. I don't think many people appreciated how shitfucked our visa processes are, even before the current "administration" helping.
The username requirement isn't anything new; that requirement was on our DS-160 years ago.
The "wants people to set their social media profiles to public" isn't quoted, so seems less like an official policy anywhere and more like one embassy worker being a prick. Unfortunately, each individual embassy operates independently totally devoid of any accountability.
This process is dehumanizing, inefficient, and totally fucked...but this particular part of it has been this was for a long-ass time.
It's in a technology community but isn't really about technology. It doesn't contain much useful information (the post would be a better place to share what TWC is than assuming I'll be curious enough to join a Zoom session). This is straight up spam.
I don't think that's true. They could both be aims, but one would be secondary (or at least not primary).
I don't think they're both true at all though. I don't believe for a second the risk posed by/to users invested enough to root their phones is high enough to warrant this nonsense. The cynical/profitable explanation seems a whole lot more likely, imo.
Not to mention the cost savings difference. Developer salaries make a ChatGPT subscription look like a bargain. C-level salaries make racks of dedicated hardware to run local models look like one.
...Florida law is only relevant within Florida and, to a limited extent, the United States.
And even then only to the extent those with the power to do so choose to enforce it. It might matter if you or I break the law; it will not matter in any meaningful way if Meta does.
The email also mentioned they'll be donating it to a nonprofit, to be decided upon by the people who sign up early. It's not ideal, but it doesn't seem especially evil either.
I can't imagine there's a huge overlap between people seeing this comment and people who said they wouldn't touch social security. The people this needs to be yelled at aren't getting their news online (at least not the ones I've interacted with).
Musk has also called it "insane" that some subreddits had banned the ability to post links to X.
Actually, clicking through to the images that elon was replying to, the user had commented that elon isn't a nazi and didn't do a nazi salute. I'm choosing to interpret this as the part that elon was calling insane, not the banning.
Maybe that's how we know it wasn't an intern or ai posting this time.