Hacker News Reader

Comment by fy20 | Hacker News Reader

This is really no different than what other countries do, e.g. US border officials extensively questioning foreigners or asking for usernames and passwords for social media. As a visitor you have to abide by the law of the country, which may be different from your own country, and whose interpretation may be stretched by border control at the point of entry.

The only difference here is that they were able to build an app to do all the tracking in plain sight. I'm sure governments in the US and Europe would love to be able to force all visitors to install a similar app.

View on HN

Does being similar excuse it somehow? Behavior by customs at the US border is abhorrent as well.

Yes. I think it does excuse it. If the US does X and expects everyone to accept it. Then Country Y doing X is excused… how else could it be? Any other way leads to disadvantage of Country Y

Applying this logic to X="wiping out its native population and taking their land" and Y=China just gets me downvotes around here sadly

The original point was that if a country is doing something now, that can be an excuse for another country doing the same thing now.

If you want to extend your excuse to "a country did something bad 50 / 100 / 500 / 1000 years ago (and later regretted it)" then you need to provide extra reasoning for why that still works as an excuse for what a country is doing now.

Edit: I'm guessing from the downvotes that I didn't make my comment clear enough (or I didn't understand the comment I was responding to). My intent was to point out the logical gap in an argument that could be seen as justifying China's genocidal policies.

That's taking it way out of context of the original point.

There isn't a lot of evidence of China doing that (your X). I expect Xinjiang will jump to front of mind for people, that is largely a "Mass Incarceration of an ethnic group"... which while not at all what my original point was, there is definitely an element of hypocrisy from the US here... But unlike travel restrictions, I don't think my original point holds.

> This is really no different than what other countries do, e.g. US border officials extensively questioning foreigners or asking for usernames and passwords for social media.

I’ve never encountered this when crossing a border and don’t even know how I would sensibly answer any of this. I don’t use social media and don’t travel with a smart phone. So what now? Would they make me buy one in the airport and sign up for Facebook there?

It's definitely a thing. I believe ESTA now asks for all social media user names (not passwords, but I suppose the US government doesn't need those), and it is definitely a requirement for getting a US visa.

They ask but it’s not a requirement to fill it in.

Remember that entry into the USA for a foreigner is entirely at the mercy of the border control officers. If they deem you "suspicious", they can refuse you access, and you don't really have any appeal.

The made it mandatory in 2020: https://estatousa.com/esta-social-media-question/

My wife just filled an ESTA and it was still optional.

According to https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/faq?lang=en it's optional in the esta although they remind you that they can reject for any reason.

Well of course it is optional, endless people don't use social media for anything at all, and have never, and will never, have logins or handles.

Huge, massive amounts of people are like this. Huge. Twitter, Facebook, others have massively inflated usage numbers.

I suspect people with social media logins are the minority in the US, for example.

Doubt me? Do you think most people's 68 year old parents, or grandparents, all have logins?

Either way, how can you make it a requirement to provide, what is not a requirement to have?

> Either way, how can you make it a requirement to provide, what is not a requirement to have?

You simply make it a requirement to provide it if you have it. That is not the same as optional. If its optional then you aren't lying to immigration if you leave it blank. If it is not optional then you are.

Bearick, that guy fron LOTR

Wherick, the inverse of Waldo.

Nareick, always says nope.

Tearick, always rips up newspapers.

Hairick, ironic, guy's bald.

Lairick, dude is a shut in.

Stareick, stop looking at me!

Pairick, it's a chick.

Mareick, this chick is a centaur.

Fairick, redhead.

Depends what you mean by requirement. Visiting/moving to USA is not a requirement. Not perjuring yourself is not a requirement if you don't mind staying in prison and/or paying fines. If, however, you do want to travel to USA and want do it without worrying about spending extended "vacation" you do need to fill the form truthfully. That includes giving a list of handles you have used on those listed social media sites (at least on DS-160).

Yes it is still optional. I travelled on an ESTA a few months ago , left the social media handles section blank, and they made no comment at the border. That said it is still very capricious.

“What psycho doesn’t have a social media account? Search him/her!”

When I applied for a us tourist visa I was explicitly signing away any rights to privacy. I forgot the exact formulation but it went along the lines of “I understand that by travelling into the US I have no expectation of privacy whatsoever”, click checkbox or you can’t continue to the next page, where I was asked to enter all my social media usernames.

It is different. A user can change their social media passwords and device after entering the country (sure, you can be stopped by border patrol anywhere, but that's relatively "rare"). The overreach takes place in a limited time and place, when entering the country, and aside from the data-harvesting concern can be counteracted afterwards to prevent future tracking. This app is a pocket spy that you're mandated to keep that pocket spy on your device throughout your entire stay.

US has infamously heinous border controls, what they do should not be the acceptable way. It also doesn't excuse that other countries behave in similar and disgusting ways.

> The only difference here is that they were able to build an app to do all the tracking in plain sight. I'm sure governments in the US and Europe would love to be able to force all visitors to install a similar app.

Yet, we do not because unlike in Qatar, the UAE and other religious dictatorships, we are a democracy and we have the ability to change our government.

You can do better than whatbouatism.

"It's okay when we commit the same immoral acts that authoritarians commit because we're a democracy"

American democracy commits heinous crimes across the world. Being a democracy doesn't absolve them of the moral degeneracy.

He's right about the whataboutism though.

Right on

he is right, but raising whataboutism isn't an argument. It's absolutely valid to point out immoral doings of the very people who are doing the accusations. Otherwise, it's a race to make the accusations and the first one wins - everyone else is whataboutism. You can easily see who came up with the inane whatboutism - the one who did a whole lot of crimes in the past, and wants to judge others now for similar crimes.

Yep. It's an inversion so that you're the bad guy for taking a look at the ledger you both (implicitly or explicitly) agreed to use.

Variations of:

"Hey can I get back that $50 I lent you? I always pay you back and thought we had a mutual understanding, what gives?"

"Nice whataboutism, quit trying to make it about me."

You example doesn't make sense for this situation. It's between two people and things they did. However, The OP isn't the US government and hasn't committed war crimes (I assume).

Also your example isn't even whataboutism which is defined as "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue."

What other accusation or difficult question is being raised in your example? It's person A asking for money he lent to person B back and pointing out what when person B lent him money he paid it back.

Holding another group or person to the same/similar standard is often called "whataboutism" though. I will concede that that is probably misplaced (and malicious) application and not what was originally intended.

That's why claims of hypocrisy against the other party, backed up with examples of the same behavior in other situations from them instead of you, can be cheaply dismissed as "whataboutism".

Using whataboutism to deflect a claim of hypocrisy is wrong, I'm completly with you on that. However to be even more firm about this, regardless of the intentions of whataboutism, you can't hold citizens of a country responsible for the actions of their government unless they were directly involved.

However... visa V mastercard , using whataboutism is valid in this situation. Bringing up something the US government did in the past to silence the criticism of a US citizen to another countries actions is wrong.

EDIT: Just another thought about your example. There isn't even hypocrisy. Person B lent money to A and A paid it back, then Person A lent money to B and B didn't pay it back.

- B doesn't pay back money

- A pays back money

There's no contradictions in their actions.

" It's absolutely valid to point out immoral doings of the very people who are doing the accusations."

What has this parent done that makes them ineligible to criticize others?

not the parent, but the others who responded with "whataboutism". Holding one accountable to the same standards that he holds others accountable isn't wrong. I refuse to take anyone who raises the bogey of "whataboutism" seriously. It has the same validity as someone responding to an argument that it's wrong to make that argument at this time of the day.

Whataboutism isn't pointing out a contradiction or hypocrisy.

It's a method of deflection.

"Whataboutism' is a rhetorical device that involves accusing others of offenses as a way of deflecting attention from one's own deeds."

This is the motte-and-bailey fallacy. When people cry whataboutism, it is because the person they're crying it at pointed out their hypocrisy. Then when they get called out on it, they fall back to saying it's a method of deflection.

decrying whataboutism is starting to just look like deflection. Calling out hypocrisy is not whataboutism.

It's not hypocrisy because the poster has never been the president of the United States, the person who authorizes military operations. I'm also going to go out on a limb an assume they haven't committed a war crime as soldier, commander, or any person who would be directly involved.

Whataboutism: "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue"

Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

You can't be a hypocrite for something another person, group, or country has done. Even if you are a member of that grouping*. Notice how the definition clearly states "one's own behavior".

-----------------------------------------------

* I'm sure there's an exception here if you represent that group or control that group, like the CEO of a company or a spokesman. However just being a citizen of a country doesn't apply.*

It is. I could see point if the people from USA seriously cleaned their own house before attacking others. Anything else comes out just as malicious. Maybe they should start with privacy for everyone and getting rid of slavery...

What if this person is 16 and can't vote. How is he responsible for the acts of the US government?

There is always the militias.

So he just has to be a member of one? How many meetings does he have to attend?, how much larping and dinner theatre does he have to do before he is allowed to criticize other countries without the burden of things past and current governments have done?

Are you bloody serious? For real real not for play play? Some other poster made the comment that "whataboutism" is deflection. Considering every country has done some amount of bad things, either in the past or now, according to you and other parents, no one would be allowed to criticize any other country's govermnet. That's the ultimate deflection.

There is no political party in the US that is against the rigorous collection of private information of people entering the country. Biometric data, social media account disclosure, excessive questioning by the TSA. You literally have no option to change any of this.

> You literally have no option to change any of this.

I'm guessing you only figuratively mean literally. You have the option of starting your own party that does care about privacy (and then voting for yourself), and you have the option of "contributing to the election campaigns of" (i.e. bribing) politicians who will then vote for legislation you want.

More practically, you can campaign within an existing party (presumably the Democrats) for them to support electoral reform (e.g. RCV or Approval Voting, at least for state elections) so that new parties can emerge, and so that the existing parties become more reflective of the actual wishes of voters.

Yes, I too enjoy my decision on a daily basis as to whether I prefer Pepsi or Coke.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com