I just deleted my entire social media presence before visiting the US – and I'm a citizen We don't want to believe what we deeply understand: nothing is really deleted, and someone, somewhere can (and probably will) use that record against us. It's possible that someone and somewhere will be a Customs and Border Protection agent and a US airport, because now we've all heard a story of how agents have prevented a …
Very unusual you have NO social media profiles for us to delve into..... come this way into detention for us to fully interview you over the next 14 days before transfering you to some florida shithole where we store 25 000 other people we dont like.
PS if you happen to die there, your relatives will be told you were 'shot while trying to escape'
I have no Social Media accounts. And I have nothing to hide. I just never saw the attraction of FB, Xitter, Insta et al. Maybe I am simply not social?
There must be many people like me. If they are all blocked from entering the US, few tourists, indeed, will enter in future.
I do post on blogs and sites like this, but these are scattered all around the internet and I always use an alias. Different aliases, mind you.
However, my real name is one a dozen, I have to say. I once found 50 FB accounts with my exact first and last name, none of them mine. That will certainly help when people start searching for me.
Never had a problem with any of this.
I'm much the same, possibly more so as I never us the phone to access bank or credit cards. I use my mobile for calls, maps and photography and very little else. I'm sure ICE and/or border security would find this very suspicious. However, despite having lived and worked in the USA long before all the current stupidity reared its ugly head and having many friends there I have absolutely no desire to visit while the current dictatorship remains in power.
It is not just visiting countries, there is an industry now where employers will pay a company to dig into an applicant's (or employee's) online presence to see what they have posted.
Is there something that could cause embarrassment to the company?
Are there political links that may not fit with a corporate profile?
The list goes on.
Journalists use this to find long forgotten posts from when a current public figure was a student and try to use it to destroy careers.
"I use my mobile for calls, maps and photography and very little else. "
I'm the same and I think I'd get away with it being of a certain age. If I were twenty something, they'd want to deep search my luggage (and possibly me) for the "real" phone I've hidden somewhere.
People don't realise what is happening. To upset those happy in ignorance with faith in the system here we go:
They have stolen all the wealth we could have and run up huge debts that they expect you to pay off. They have been lying to you for years about all sorts of things and constructing a pyschological matrix around you. People have been put in place in senior positions in all the government institutions that can be controlled. The control mechanism is carrot and stick, they choose people that are deeply flawed, corrupt in ways I don't even want to mention to form the stick of threated revelation. The carrot is money and often allowing them other corruptions that help by adding to the stick. These people are bad to the bone.
The debt bubble will eventually burst with all the money (and power) having been taken. Whatever cataclysm happens next will kill billions. It may be WW3, it may be a real pandemic, food collapse or something else. Most likely a combination. Look at 1930 and think worse because this time we are in a more globally linked world and relying on each other more. When this unravels and we cannot easily trade oil, gas, food, materials we cannot support the population as is. So, our disposable income becomes zero and many will struggle to eat or be sent to die in some shit filled trench somewhere hunted by drones in a war that has no point other than distracting us from the hell our 'leaders' created. But don't get angry at them until you stop believing them when they offer you whatever you want. The outcome never delivers.
After you have down voted this to oblivion, try and remember you were warned as thngs get worse and don't shoot the messengers, they may be trying to help you.
The Chinese have recently relaxed their visa requirements for short stay visitors, for many countries its now either visa or get a short stay visa at the border. They don't typically hold on to misbehaving foreigners, my information is that if you behave badly they'll just take you to the airport and send you home.
The recent reports about them denying exit clearance for dual citizens are a special case, partly because they don't recognize dual citizenship. FWIW we do exactly the same thing here -- if you're involved in a criminal investigation you're likely to have your passport lifted for the duration. The actual circumstances vary but currently being Chinese in the US is skating on very thin ice (metaphorically speaking).
The US border situation that does cause the most problems isn't tourists visiting the US but if you're a permanent resident (Green Card holder).
"However, my real name is one a dozen, I have to say. I once found 50 FB accounts with my exact first and last name, none of them mine. That will certainly help when people start searching for me."
I strongly suspect that is the exact scenario that AI data trawling will use to most effect to create "false positives" about people who little to no social media presence. AI trained to sniff out data on a person will be based on the assumption that "*everybody* has social media accounts and I have no doubt whatsoever that AI will get data from accounts totally unrelated to the subject. While queuing up for my flu jab last winter, I discovered there is a person registered with my local GP with the same name as me (Was asked which one as there were 2 of us booked in that day, had to confirm address to tick off the correct one on the list). So, since few people divulge anything more locatable than a town of residence on social media, it's entirely likely that some AI scraper will confuse the two of us. And I'm certain I'm not alone in this scenario.
As long as you actually get allocated another IP and don't just get reassigned the same one from the pool because your modem hasn't been offline for long enough. Some ISPs hang on to "soft" static leases for a few minutes, some for a few hours, some for a day or two.
A couple of decades ago I woked in an HP factory in the UK whose IP address was registered in France.
I once worked for a company where all our Internet access was funnelled via our office in Paris. So (and this was a *long* time ago) the few adverts that I saw were all in French. And sites that tried to use language settings derived from my percieved location gave me stuff in French. Just as well my French was usable (if a bit basic).
"Create a new user on your computer and take a look at Google maps. It will start with the map centred very near your home."
That's somewhat pointless as well. I know my town pretty well and will be looking to see where some other place is located. I try to mix up my driving directions for each search. I know the distance to towns around me and will use those as my starting point. A couple are up to 60 miles away which means I add an hour and the 60 miles to whatever the guess is for the route. I've been getting a bunch of work in a town that's 50 miles away and I'll use a business that's at the highway exit as the starting point since I can get there without needing any nav.
I discovered there is a person registered with my local GP with the same name as me
I know there's no-one else with my name anywhere near where I live - it's an unusual last name.. In fact, in the county I live in, there's only about 6 other people with the same last name - I'm married to one and the others are one of my brothers and his kids..
"I discovered there is a person registered with my local GP with the same name as me"
When that happens, they'll often ask for DoB as a check.
The city I live in is something I keep a wraps on and even the state to some extent. It would be useless to try and mask the country (US). Some "influencers" have been found by unstable fans when they've said where they live and then posted a selfie of themselves at the chippy "just steps from their new flat". One returned home and found one inside having a nap on their bed waiting for them to return. The "media star" didn't bat from that side of the wicket either.
I have no [anti]-social media accounts.
If you look at my postings you will note that I have called Mr. Zuckerberg's creation "FacePlant, because sooner or later that's exactly what you will do to yourself whilst on it."
Thanks to the authoritarian regime of the GOP, looks like I was 100% correct.
I can not say the same; I babble incessantly online. Largely 'cause I'm old enough not to give a rat's patoot what other people think, especially American border security, as I'm retired and had absolutely no intention of returning there even before Drumpf was first elected. I gave up on the US in the spring following 9/11. Place turned into a paranoid police state shithole and I moved back home to Canada where I didn't feel threatened by so-called "security measures" the government itself was using.
The US has gradually crept further and further right for years since then, and has now gone full-on Fascist under Drumpf.
The terrorists won - they destroyed "The American Dream" and replaced it with paranoid fear of the world.
>” I've heard of the wayback machine, I assume US authorities do too.”
Given NSA started collecting data on US citizens in 2002, and by the time of Snowden’s disclosures in 2013 had been accessing: Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple etc’s servers for several years, I suspect the US authorities don’t need to use the Wayback machine, as they have their own archive/wayback machime…
Which sort of makes it a nonsense to delete your social media profiles in the expectation the US authorities won’t have access…
Yes... yes I did...
That's why I never bought into this whole 'social' media bullcrap...
There's nothing social about it.
It's large corporations trying to grab every piece of personal info they can to sell to advertisers.
And as history tends to repeat itself it's also a treasure trove of info for government agencies.
I'm actually surprised how long it has taken for people to finally wake up and do something about it !
"I'm actually surprised how long it has taken for people to finally wake up and do something about it !"
Not enough people. Not enough standing up for principles as opposed to what they want. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
.......here you are...........still on ElReg!
I don't suppose that you have closed all your bank accounts.....and put the greenbacks under the bed!
.....or stopped using Amazon?
Still use Signal....or Telegram......or WhatsApp?
Is your cell phone a secure burner? Probably not!
What about your credit cards? The bad guys can find out a lot by snooping there!
Surely.....lot's of places for the bad guys to look for you (on the web)!
Big Brother is infallible and all-powerful. Every success, every achievement, every victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Coming to a country near you...
Ah, yes, the country that tells everybody about "Free Speech" and is prosecuting directly or indirectly anyone actually using their rights.
That is, only the "Rich" and "Mighty" are allowed to use their "Free Speech" rights and will sue the hell out of everybody telling them a different story.
>> 2025 was when it all changed. When socials transformed from self-expression to entrapment. From now on, every word you write and every photo and video and podcast you post will be analyzed, weighed, and judged for something far more sinister than targeted advertising.
Echelon has been active for decades, with their own lines directly into ISP centrals, etc.
Because I don't use my name and never post my image or family photos. There's a cat, and that's it. You must participate in Caturday. Family is what a google shared album is for. To stay safe simply silo your politics and reset your phone before reentry.
Happened to mention in passing to a friend that I have never had a Google account of any sort and certainly don't use gmail, but it still grates that I know they are "reading" (scraping) all the emails I send to and receive from people who do have gmail. "Flabbergasted" perhaps best describes their reaction. They hadn't even considered it was possible, let alone that anyone would actually do that. It's not helped by the fact that email is now a web-thing, many people don't use a "real" email client these days and it's difficult if you want to do that because many ISPs don't run their own email servers any more.
Of course, even I will have a Google profile of some sort that no amount of use of "private" tabs and clearing cookies can avoid, but I hope it's as minimal as possible.
M.
>” they are "reading" (scraping) all the emails I send to and receive from people who do have gmail.”
People have forgotten email is still the equivalent of sending a post card.
The battles I have had when companies engage third-parties to do HR and Accounts and they simply send stuff from jo@company to jane@agency not realising they have just disclosed personally identifiable information and thus breeched GDPR and/or exposed commercially sensitive financial information…
The scary thing is even those at such agencies don’t see the problem, yet will happily tell you how they (Internally) treat such information.
That's not entirely accurate.
It's now more a closed envelope that could be read by the Post Office but no longer by the courier.
I have not seen an unencrypted SMTP stream for a long time now - either it sets up an encrypted tunnel via TLS on port 25 or it goes straight to port 465 or 587. The sending and receiving resources still see your email, but the path in between is nowadays encrypted.
>> People have forgotten email is still the equivalent of sending a post card.
Apple Mail is secure between Apple devices.
So is FaceTime (video or voice only).
Turn off cell service and only use your wifi, the telcos can't snoop on the encrypted comms or even track your location away from home.
Half the population has an iPhone - the rest, screw them. Sick and tired of spam.
The fact that you have thought about this and executed on this is a huge stain on the usa's reputation.
Freedom of speech is in the usa constitution.
I hope everything goes smoothly on entry to the usa.
The only social media I use is LinkedIn and there.
I have no plans to visit the usa for the foreseeable future.
He's freaking out about something that has never happened! If indeed he is a US citizen with a US passport, no one is checking his Social Media history! You really think DHS is checking the history of every American that travels abroad! This is nothing but a scare mongering article to click bait the fools (especially over the pond!).
If you are applying for a Visa then yes, they will check you out! As long as you're not some whacko supporting terrorists then you probably have no worries!
Some of you people need to stand back and take care of your own glass houses before throwing stones at ours! Or you'll all be shouting Hail Starmer! before you know it!
"Freedom of speech is in the usa constitution."
That's incorrect. The only "right" in the US Constitution is Copyright. Freedom of Speech is in an addendum added later in what's called "The Bill of Rights". The wording of the "right" is important as well as the subsequent case law that does institute some limits.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Private entities are not prohibited from abridging one's freedom of speech, only government. If LinkedIn censors the word "literally", which they should, you can't cry that your "rights" have been trampled. In that context, you don't have any that aren't spelled out in the Terms and Conditions and then only if you pay for a ticket to talk to their arbitrating company. Good luck.
1984 and Fahrenheit 451 used to be warnings, now they are our reality.
Instead of book burnings stuff in digital libraries just gets deleted, sometimes forever if no backups exist.
They don't need to spy on us, just look at what we do in social media.
Privacy doesn't exist.
And I could keep going but why bother? We all heard that before, we all ignored the warnings.
Oh and the Nazis are alive, well and have the nukes.
Hope you sleep well tonight.
"Instead of book burnings stuff in digital libraries just gets deleted, sometimes forever if no backups exist."
One of the reasons I don't ever want to move again (if I have to do the moving) is the mass of books I've collected over the years. There's only a couple of places in the house I can rearrange to add another bookcase. The fiction section is half of one shelf unit as I rotate those out and have been collecting up audiobook versions of my favs. Half of the fiction section is signed Niven novels since I used to see Larry a couple of times a year and would try to bring something I hadn't yet had signed.
I am shocked and appalled that, if you download jpg photos from the iPhone over usb cord, it transmits all the exif tags undisturbed. You have to send them via email to be sure the tags were stripped off.
(It’s relevant if the photos have any chance of going to court, because opposing council is liable to subpoena any cell phone they can if there’s the slightest whiff it could have any evidence relative to the case. If it’s a generic digital camera, I think they don’t give a darn, especially if they think the camera had inhabited the inside of a toilet bowl “that one time.”)
Um, you're shocked and appalled that downloading a binary file doesn't create a duplicate of the original?
More shocking is that your email software does.. It has no business arsing around with your attachments. unless it has some sort of "this is a photo, shall I resize it first?" option.
Surely if you're doing all this you didn't bring your REAL phone with you? Because it sounds like you did if you're deleting photos and apps.
If you did, you should have wiped it, then restore from backup once you're past the border nazis. Then there's no need to censor photos and random apps you've collected over the years. If they ask why it is empty tell them you bought a new phone for your trip because it has a much better camera than yours and you haven't had time to set it up yet.
For that matter who even saves them? I wouldn't from buying a phone. I probably get something in email that I ignore, but if I need a receipt it is on a website somewhere - though I keep my password list on my home PC so I couldn't produce one on the road.
I can't remember the last time I saved a paper receipt. I used to, because my dad always did and we tend to copy our parents - at least until we figure out "that wasn't him being smart he's just a packrat!"
> I can't remember the last time I saved a paper receipt.
Sometimes paper is good…
Recently the fun of downloading a stack of documents and printing them: they cover various home improvements that have 25+ year guarantees and will need to be handed on to whomsoever I sell the house to.
Whilst I will also maintain digital copies, from experience will 1980’s and 1990’s documents and media, I am not confident 2025 documents and media will be readable in 2050…
I've moved several times over the years and have never asked for nor been asked about documents for stuff like warranties on the AC or shingles. The AC has a label on it so it should be easy to get warranty service (such as it is, it is usually not that good) without original paperwork. I had no trouble doing so in my previous house when some circuit board in it died. The warranty covered the prorated cost of the part, and no labor, so it was hardly worth the hassle of dealing with it.
I suppose shingles are a different story since you won't have a serial number that can be linked to a specific purchase date, but I've never known anyone who made a WARRANTY claim against their roof - if it is damaged in a storm your insurance pays out and you have a new roof installed. I suppose there are some limited circumstances where you could make a warranty claim against your roofing manufacturer for something that wasn't covered by insurance, but probably it only matters to people without insurance (i.e. the criminally insane)
"I've moved several times over the years and have never asked for nor been asked about documents for stuff like warranties on the AC or shingles."
It's not just warranty, but proof that some thing had been done to the home. If the AC compressor was replaced 2 years ago, that's a good selling point as it should last many years more. How do you prove you had the house repiped or the electrical brought up to modern standards with no receipts for the work. I have a file on everything to do with my house. When I was working for an AV company many years ago, we came up with a home binder to document things such as flooring brand/part number, the measurements for blinds/curtains and all sorts of other stuff since many homes we worked on were either new or undergoing major reconstruction. It was an addon that was very popular. If a tile was broken in the entry way, one could find its part number and vendor in the binder to try and source a replacement. If there was an issue with the bespoke kitchen cabinets, the company that created them was listed.
If you sell a car and can show a prospective buyer a folder with receipts for service and maintenance, it at least gives the impression that it's been well looked after.
"I can't remember the last time I saved a paper receipt. I used to, because my dad always did and we tend to copy our parents - at least until we figure out "that wasn't him being smart he's just a packrat!""
And then you drop your phone in the loo setting off the water sensor and having a fun time trying to convince accounting to accept your recollections regarding reimbursable expenses. Or the tax man.
"Because it sounds like you did if you're deleting photos and apps."
I take the approach of not having anything very much on the phone in the first place. It winds up spending most of it's time keeping my pocket filled. This lets me enjoy my pastime of watching other idiots neck deep in their phone playing dodgems with the world.
I'm a naturalized US citizen. I vote democrat. I say bad things about Trump, probably 3 or 20 times a week. I don't really use social media that much, so difficult to delete what isn't there.
My experience of CBP is.. "You're standing in the wrong line.. global entry isn't working today." I then get asked two generic questions and in I go.
Once my wife accidentally said we were traveling for 2 years instead of 2 weeks. The CBP officer thought this was funny.
I've heard the horror stories, and they are real. Nearly every time though it's a result of stupidity or racism. While I was a permanent resident (or green card holder), I could never understand why anyone would take the risk of violating even the most innocuous federal law - like smoking weed. Everyone who is even slightly aware in the US knows smoking weed is a federal crime, there has been too much coverage on this over the last forever decades to miss it. Driving drunk? Are you insane? Is even $100 for an Uber not better than the consequences of doing this? These are far more substantial reasons to be questioning any decision about international travel, rather than being worried over posting "Trump is a dick" on reddit.
Non-citizen here and similarly have had no problems. Be polite and respectful and you get a passport stamp and a 'enjoy your stay' in a few minutes.
I'm sure there are some horror stories. I'm also sure there are some horror stories out there with crucial bits left out when they are reported that suddenly seem to make sense when the followups happen...
I've never had any 'real' trouble but it's always uncomfortable.
Most times I have deliberately travelled to the US (as opposed to needing to connect through) I have been waved through (probably because I'm a middle aged and very white person from a wealthier country) while US citizens of colour are questioned in depth.
This post has been deleted by its author
I don't know what to make of this article, besides acknowledging that it is correct in flagging how America's newfound appetite for censorship makes a toxic soup with social media:
- the author is American so can't be refused entry at the border, so their situation is very different than that of the rest of us. They can't be refused, but could be held up, but even that risks raising a stink.
- as pointed out in another comment, having no social media presence might itself look strongly suspicious.
- unless the author is writing under a pen name (which doesn't seem to be the case), penning this article totally defeats the point of their scrubbing.
It is really sad that the US has come to this point, and I, like many Canadians, will avoid traveling through it for both ideological *and* practical reasons. Practical is simply that one is rolling the dice these days. Numerous coverage of incidents at the border, resulting in rejections or detainment don't really allow us to know how *likely* it is to happen. Probably not very likely. But if it does you are shit out of luck with your travel arrangements and future visits to the US.
Rather than doing what was done here, I suggest thinking through and strategizing a bit more. Research what is being suggested, but be careful in what advice you follow:
- "Burner phones" are often suggested, but that seems like it would be a huge red flag. Do you want to look like drug mule?
- Compartmentalize your social media presence. I post under my name on some tech sites. I post on political ones with pseudos and not backed by my primary email. Neither are done from my phone. I started doing this a long time ago, for professional reputation reasons, but it seems like a very good idea now. Search for "Trump" in your mailbox.
- What about your browser history? Scrub that `r/anti-fascist` history from your browser before crossing.
- Maybe take leaf from visitors to China and see what best practices are. You wouldn't have a Winnie the Pooh T-shirt in your luggage, visiting there, would you? Well, maybe leave the Orange Buffoon T-shirt behind as well.
- Resolve to keep your cool and never argue with border control agents. "Yes, sir!" "Yes, madam!" "I'm sorry". Most of them are courteous, most of the time. Sometimes they are a little pushy, but remember: the customer border agent is always right.
- ...
" the author is American so can't be refused entry at the border"
Actually they can:
"Lawful permanent residents cannot be refused entry unless their travel was not brief (more than 180 days) or they engaged in illegal activity after leaving the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)" https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-us-airports-and-ports-entry
I mean completely agree it's very hard to see how social media posts would qualify as 'illegal' unless they were openly supporting ISIS or something. The ones you hear about getting refused at the border have usually short-term visitors who have posted enough crazy things to get border attention then found to have lied on their visa application, overstayed a previous one or are quite obviously looking to work in the US without a green card.
> I just deleted my entire social media presence before visiting the US – and I'm a citizen
That's in the title. I wouldn't have made this statement for a permanent resident.
As a citizen they can annoy and badger him at the border, question him, search him. But at some point he'll have to be let go.
As a permanent resident while you may have more rights than a random tourist or business traveler, you also have a lot more to lose. So I would be cautious there as well.
Lawful permanent residents ARE NOT citizens! As a permanent resident of the US your status can be revoked at the will of the State Department for just about any reason. Also, maybe you did not understand that part about "illegal activity"!
Citizens cannot be denied entry into the US. Citizens cannot be denied movement across this country, even though many of us wish we could stop people from moving from blue states to our red states and I am quite sure many Democrats wish they could stop people leaving their states. I am convinced they will try this very soon. California lost a court case when they tried to tax businesses with over $1B net worth for 10 years after leaving the state. I am sure they will come up with some even more unconstitutional scheme to prevent people from leaving.
"I mean completely agree it's very hard to see how social media posts would qualify as 'illegal' unless they were openly supporting ISIS or something."
The posts are often descriptions of the illegal stuff the person had been doing. It's not the post itself. A quick tip is to not post about doing things in another country that are illegal anywhere. Tough to do since just about everything is illegal somewhere and there's no way to abide by US laws that require one to be a perfect angel.
I used to work in the US a lot 1995 - 2005. I learnt that US law at state level draws a distinction between "foreign" (from other states of the US) and "alien" (from outside the US), a truly glorious choice of words. I was always concerned at the casual acceptance (enjoyment?) of violence in everyday discussion (I was mainly in Florida, Tennessee and New Jersey, does that affect things?). I understand US homicide rates per capita over the last century have usually been five or so times greater than the UK. I sort of infer from this that nobody hates Americans more than other Americans, and I suppose that that Trump gentleman is trying to build national unity by getting Americans to hate aliens instead. I imagine it's a win-win if I stay away.
The so-called "pro-life" people are generally supportive of unfettered access to guns, the death penalty, and "stand your ground". They are also generally against women's reproductive care and anything else that may assist a mother with supporting the child that she was forced to carry to term.
These people are more interested in controlling women. They most certainly don't hold human life to be sacred.
> generally against women's reproductive care
I havn't seen any suggestion they oppose reproductive care e.g infertility treatment, birthing medicine, premmie care, etc etc.
What they oppose is anti-reproductive medicine: abortion, contraception, genital destruction.
The pro-choice are very anti fathers or grandparents being given any reproductive choice.
"The pro-choice are very anti fathers or grandparents being given any reproductive choice."
Yes, that is precisely correct. The choice belongs solely to the woman who is pregnant if she is an adult. Less clear in the case of a minor. I'm not sure what you're on about.
1. This isn't new — it's been around since after the PATRIOT Act, i.e. since 2001, at least. Now it's just happening to people of the “right sort” of phenotype and nationality. Welp, first they came and all that.
2. Everyone so smug about how they never got into “social media” — well… you know. Shadow profiles. Hope you have no friends, families and associates who are on social media. Hope they don't take photos with you. Maybe it's fine, you're a pod person who only goes out and interacts with humanity in ways that preserves your opsec 100%.
3. Even if you were blameless, they don't even need an excuse. Maybe your name is similar to someone else. Maybe you accidentally piss off someone from the CBP. Maybe they want to shake you down. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe you'll be able to clear your name, but you're going to be incarcerated while waiting, and that won't be fun, would it?
4. Even if nothing happens to you, now you're worried about it, right? That's exactly the point.
The Register used to reliably neutral on political stuff 10-15 year ago. How did it become so radicalised such that articles like this are seen by the editor as appropriate?
I appreciate that the US is ridiculously polarised between far right and far left as the only options, but there are some readers not in the US and not yet radicalised one way or the other.
Yes maybe, and the UK and Europe is fast spirally towards these extremes as successive governments ignore the will of the people and implement the will of different elite cliques instead. So I’m not sure why I picked on the US, other than it being the source of the neo-puritan and neo-fascist forms of the radicalisation at war, and the author clearly being from there.
Nonetheless, I’ll go to something like Unherd if I want politics. They have authors qualified / able to write on the subject.
@SAdams
"The Register used to reliably neutral on political stuff 10-15 year ago. How did it become so radicalised such that articles like this are seen by the editor as appropriate?"
A while ago one of the reg guys commented to eel saying they are anti-dumb. They didnt seem to have an answer when I asked how they missed the previous administration-
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2024/12/07/elon_election_spending/#c_4979441
Regardless of their 'diversity' of political opinions they do all seem to fall firmly on absolute anti-Trump.
Anti-Trump is the flag that most of the world flies. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's not popular. There was a time when even Republicans like Lindsey Graham thought Trump was a joke and unsuitable for office, but the party changed its tune because that's politics. The rest of us always knew that to be true and the only thing that has changed is that it's even worse than we feared.
@flayman
"Anti-Trump is the flag that most of the world flies. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's not popular."
So lets not pretend to talk for the world. Lets consider this American publication the reg. In a country that clearly voted massively in favour of Trump. That of course doesnt make all those people MAGA or even the extreme name calling such as racists or fascists. That is a spectrum of opinions that is not the extremist opinion of anti-Trump.
By anti-Trump I dont mean not liking the guy or even that is isnt a great President. By anti-Trump I mean the amusing idiots screaming at a camera or making a public spectacle of themselves that everything is Trumps fault even the rain.
Read my post you replied to. The reg guy comments he is anti-dumb without seeing the irony of the reg missing the entire Biden Presidency! Its the huge delusional blind spot that all they see is Trump and he can only do bad (ignoring and dismissing any good).
That nobody is anywhere on the spectrum than anti-Trump in a country that easily voted him into office, and that they can only cry about Trump and not report anything good, AND completely missed the catastrophe that was Bidens Presidency... it takes a very blinkered view to achieve that.
"it's even worse than we feared"
Welcome to FUD. That is exactly what it does to you. And they have been shovelling the FUD at you for a decade. Even Obama's crew are finally being criminally investigated for their Russia propaganda. If you want to know how far from reality you have gone to have such unnecessary fear just note that even CNN managed to acknowledge success-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thBswEC_fLk
And listen to it. He isnt a fan of Trump, not a pro-Trumper not MAGA. And yet able to mention reality.
@flayman
"This is not an American zine. It's a British zine that went transatlantic."
And very much American, as seen by the spellings, the topics, the anti-Trump nuttiness.
"We have our own hangups but are immune to the American reality distortion bubble."
Which is why its hard to argue the reg isnt in the American distortion bubble as per my previous comments you are replying to showing el reg contradicted themselves due to American extreme political views (extreme anti-Trump). Hell I just gave you a link showing even CNN managing to acknowledge success! Show me a reg article doing so? Remember they are anti-dumb, but fell asleep at the wheel when Biden was President.
You cant talk about being immune to the reality distortion and at the same time ignore reality to stay in your distorted world view. You can dislike Trump and still acknowledge reality. To be anti-Trump by rejecting reality is an extreme position.
What do I care about CNN? Some link to a video that will probably be painful for me to watch in support of your FUD theory. I don't care. There's no uncertainty or doubt. I've seen what's happening to the rule of law in the United States in slow motion. I see a President who wishes to rule unfettered and a Congress that is letting him do it, along with a Supreme Court that is overturning 60 years of equity law precedent on the barest premise. I see executive orders for departments to behave contrary to the Constitution with respect to a large cohort of people and a judiciary who says that the courts can no longer declare an EO to be unlawful on its face. Don't tell me I'm in a bubble. You have no idea what you're staring through. Tell me to acknowledge reality? Biden is senile and says dumb things, but he wasn't dangerous.
Okay, I watched your video. Its direct praise of Trump is limited to some things I do not consider controversial. You know what? There are some things I agree with Trump about. I agree with his policy on changing US expat tax liability. This would be very good news for me personally, and I support it. There may be some good things happening, but the bad are not worth it. I notice he mentions the SCOTUS case I talked about in passing. Imagine that. Trump has ordered that there is no longer a birthright to American citizenship for some people. This is directly contrary to the 14th Amendment. It is clearly, therefore, unconstitutional. But every single person that is caught by it has to sue individually or else join a cumbersome class action. An EO only binds executive departments. It is not law. It cannot challenge the prevailing interpretation of constitutional law. The Abrego Garcia case is in another class entirely. Even a 7 member majority of the Supreme Court ordered that the government must facilitate and effectuate his return without delay and that any further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act must be halted in the interim. Fortunately, the government would eventually comply three months later. What's worrying is that two dissented.
@flayman
"What do I care about CNN? Some link to a video that will probably be painful for me to watch in support of your FUD theory."
Its almost like you are trying to demonstrate precisely what I wrote. Think about what you just said on the first line, 'it will probably be painful to watch'. I am glad you pushed yourself and managed to watch it, I hope it wasnt as painful as you feared.
Remember it was you talking about your fear. Instead of even looking at my comment you have posted a huge rant of how anti-Trump you are. Even invoking Biden and amusingly claiming he wasnt dangerous.
"Okay, I watched your video. Its direct praise of Trump is limited to some things I do not consider controversial. You know what? There are some things I agree with Trump about."
I appreciate you watching and accepting some good things have happened. I dont insist you think its more good than bad. I dont agree with everything Trump has done, some things I dont care (I am in the UK), some things are a terrible own goal by the Dems trying to abuse the presidency and SCOTUS having to rule on the misbehaviour but then encoding in law that the President is so powerful.
But going back to the original issue of the reg and its lack of political neutrality, it seems they have not managed to push themselves as far as you just did. I appreciate this conversation with you.
"I am glad you pushed yourself and managed to watch it, I hope it wasnt as painful as you feared."
It wasn't painful at all.
"Remember it was you talking about your fear."
I talked about fear and you added uncertainty and doubt (FUD). There is fear that has been borne out. FUD is a tactic to confuse and distract. That's not what this article is.
"But going back to the original issue of the reg and its lack of political neutrality, it seems they have not managed to push themselves as far as you just did."
I still maintain that on balance Trump is bad for America and the world, and that this is a view that was nearly universal before he won in 2016, after which we saw a lot of revision and backpedalling. Boris Johnson once said he doesn't visit New York in case he should happen to bump into Trump. Not long after, he tried to emulate him.
So if The Reg (a British zine, really) isn't willing to pour praise on him, then it doesn't seem odd to me. This article anyway is less about the problems with Trump himself and more about the dangers of the erosion of privacy that so many people have unwittingly nodded along to. We all need to take our privacy more seriously. From a European perspective, privacy in and entering America is particularly fraught.
I'm not sure the Reg has ever claimed to be politically neutral, but I might be wrong. It is without a doubt irreverent. That's why I like it. I don't think it has always been kind to Biden's or Obama's policies, though I can't remember anything that particularly stuck out. There's plenty of snark to go around.
"In a country that clearly voted massively in favour of Trump." - codejunky
No they didn't - 49.80% of the voters that voted, voted for Trump. 48.32% voted for Kamala Harris.
Source - https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2024presgeresults.pdf
Trump won the electoral college 312 to 226 - which is a big margin in the race that selects the President but as individuals Americans were fairly evenly split between the two main candidates - so no, no massive mandate.
"The first thing I wan to say is 'Mandate my ass'" - B Movie by Gil Scott-Heron https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSOp507HJMA
@Pussifer
"No they didn't - 49.80% of the voters that voted, voted for Trump. 48.32% voted for Kamala Harris."
Ok. And so Trump got the majority.
"Trump won the electoral college 312 to 226 - which is a big margin in the race that selects the President but as individuals Americans were fairly evenly split between the two main candidates - so no, no massive mandate."
To which of course all over the map was red (Trump). Breaking down the results from states to counties and its even more red. He took all swing states. Even the BBC cant spin it-
"With 76.9 million votes and counting, Trump won what is known as the popular vote, according to the latest tally by the BBC’s US partner, CBS News.
That means he scored more votes than Harris (74.4 million), or any other candidate. No Republican has managed that feat since 2004." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5w9w160xdo
@cmdrklarg
"Incorrect. He got a plurality (the most votes) not a majority (50+%)."
You need to read the comment you are replying to-
"No they didn't - 49.80% of the voters that voted, voted for Trump. 48.32% voted for Kamala Harris."
Ok. And so Trump got the majority.
So as I am responding to someone who literally is talking about VOTES then when I say he got the majority I dont mean of turnips, coins or anything else random in this world, I am responding about votes.
"He got approximately half of the 64% of eligible voters who turned out to vote in 2024, AKA 32%. That means that 68% *did not* vote for him."
Which is how a voting system works where only people who cast a vote (have an opinion) get counted. Those who use their freedom and right to not vote do not get counted either way.
@flayman
"With respect, 49.8% of the votes is less than 50% so how can that be a majority?"
Really? Ok I will try to do another bloody maths lesson.
Using the figures provided Trump has 49.80% and Harris has 48.32%. A percentage has the total value of 100 regardless of how you split it. 49.80%+48.32% = 98.12%.
But a percentage =100% no matter how you split it! So that means there was also another slice or subset of 1.88%!!! We found it!
So we now have 3 numbers: Trump 49.80%, Harris: 48.32% and other: 1.88%.
If you now order the numbers from largest to smallest you will find that one of them has the majority.
So the reason < 50% = majority is because the percentage is not split 2 ways. The percentage is to make visualising difficult numbers easier.
No, you're wrong. < 50% is never a majority. < 50% *of the vote* is what we're talking about. It doesn't matter how may ways it's split. Why doesn't "other" count? He didn't win those either. We don't say an MP won a majority for their seat in the Commons when they get less than 50%, do we? Doesn't matter if 5% went to Monster Raving Loony Party.
@flayman
"I can't help but chuckle at a thumbs down for pointing out that less than 50% is not a majority."
That is from me. I was about to explain how wrong you are but then realised I should probably check something, you are American aint you? I am from the UK so in our government system we have the relative majority.
So I am guessing if you are American and being pedantic then yes it would be plurality however we consider the largest chunk to be the majority.
I'm am American by birth, and I have lived in Britain for 26 years. You trotted out mathematics. Mathematically, under 50% ain't a majority. Politically, I've never heard of this relative majority thing of which you speak. I looked it up and it's synonymous with plurality. Within the history of this thread, you would like to refer to this relative majority to say that Americans "voted massively in favour of Trump". That is not supportable.
@flayman
"I'm am American by birth, and I have lived in Britain for 26 years. You trotted out mathematics. Mathematically, under 50% ain't a majority. Politically, I've never heard of this relative majority thing of which you speak."
Thats ok I didnt realise Americans didnt have the relative majority thing- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting), I guess be both learned something.
"I looked it up and it's synonymous with plurality"
Yes. And since it is synonymous and I described it out in simple maths for you too it would seem we are both right to say Trump won the relative majority (UK)/plurality(US) of the vote.
"Within the history of this thread, you would like to refer to this relative majority to say that Americans "voted massively in favour of Trump". That is not supportable."
You may think that but we can disagree-
https://news.sky.com/story/us-election-how-big-a-win-was-this-for-donald-trump-13250701
"President-elect Trump increased his vote share in 90% of US counties, compared with 2020, and became just the second Republican since 1988 to win the popular vote."
"Trump's win this year is the clearest one this century other than Obama's 2008 landslide."
"The states that are categorised as swing states "..."Trump did indeed win all seven and was the first president in recent history to do so."
""All 50 states shifted towards the Republican party and nobody's done that ever."..."Trump is indeed the first Republican to do this"
All of that supporting information you supply tells a story which is true to an extent, but it's subject to journalistic narrative and the devil is in the detail. He may have increased has share in 90% of US counties, but by how much? That's a misleading stat. He is the second Republican to win the popular vote since 1988. Big whoop. That says more about the Republican party and the electoral college than anything else. Trump's win being the second clearest this century is also not particularly impressive. There have been six elections in this century and four of them were less decisive. One was more decisive. The seven swing states all went to him. Okay, that's reasonably impressive, but it's not massive. The last one, all 50 states shifted towards the Republican party, is the most impressive. It only takes a small shift though. The popular vote was not won by a majority, and his victory is not how you've described it.
@flayman
Let me break down your comment-
"He is the second Republican to win the popular vote since 1988"
"Trump's win being the second clearest this century is also not particularly impressive"
"There have been six elections in this century and four of them were less decisive. One was more decisive."
"The seven swing states all went to him."
"The last one, all 50 states shifted towards the Republican party, is the most impressive"
Seriously read that again without your dismissive delusions. These are the statements you wrote, then somehow wrote off as not "massively in favour of Trump". You are insanely delusional to write that in one comment. You seem to be again proving the problem of delusion where anything he achieves must be ignored or dismissed as it does not fit your world view.
Remember how you expected the CNN video link I provided might cause you pain by not fitting your narrative but when you watched it you found it not painful and you even agreed with it. You dont have to like Trump to be able to acknowledge the above without dismissing them as somehow not impressive. Everything you wrote there is impressive achievement that you then dismiss as not. Insanity.
"The popular vote was not won by a majority, and his victory is not how you've described it."
We already resolved this, yes he won what from the UK would be called the majority as we use relative majority for voting. In the American term it is synonymous with plurality AS YOU STATED IN YOUR LAST POST. He won the election both on votes and electoral college and the above impressive achievements. You can acknowledge that and still not like him. You can accept that and still think he is a bad President. The facts do not have to change your opinion of not liking him, but the facts stand.
If your opinions cannot withstand the facts that is an issue with your opinions. I am not even trying to change your opinion of Trump as a guy nor President, I am only stating the facts. Amusingly this makes some people here think I am MAGA, which quickly identifies them as having a problem. Because the only real valid rebuttal would be with facts and I do admit when I get the facts wrong (I appreciate that as a part of the conversation to increase my knowledge). Dont fall into the trap of rejecting reality for not matching your desired beliefs.
I really don't understand why you're freaking out on me. I calmly stated how I interpret the quotes you provided to support your view that America massively voted in favour of Trump. It's just not true. If it had been true, I'd be upset but I'd accept it. Although I saw it coming, I was upset but accepted that he won decisively and that it was fair. I don't see how you can possibly sustain the argument that America voted massively in favour of a candidate who did not win a mathematical majority of the votes. And its relative improvement over 2016 is also not material to that objective assessment. He did better than four years ago. There's no reasonable argument to the contrary. The electoral college mechanics can deliver an appreciable victory to candidates who did not win even a plurality of the popular vote. He won 306 to 232 in 2016. That also looks impressive in isolation. None of this has anything to do with my opinion of Trump. 2024 was an impressive achievement. I never said it wasn't. I just said it doesn't represent a result massively in favour of him. I think you may be projecting your own hangups here.
Another way to look at it is this. Trump's 49.80% share of the vote compares to Harris' 48.32% share in absolute terms as roughly a 3% greater share. It's modest, not massive. Combined with the electoral college results, it represents a clear victory, and looking at previous elections one could reasonably but tentatively plot a trajectory. The rest is just noise.
@flayman
"I really don't understand why you're freaking out on me."
No freaking out, just literally pointing the facts to you as you seem to be letting them slip by or dismissing them. Normally I wouldnt bother but I figured I would try and see if it was possible to have you acknowledge the reality even while holding onto your beliefs.
"I calmly stated how I interpret the quotes you provided to support your view that America massively voted in favour of Trump."
I know and that amused me. I was trying to think of a way to represent it to you without the triggering bias that caused you to dismiss it. If you could replace Trump with a family member or friend or acquaintance-
Imagine they managed to win the popular vote, not achieved since since 1988. Would you see it as impressive or would you call it big whoop?
Imagine it was the second clearest win this century. Would you say it isnt impressive?
Imagine they scored ALL the swing states! is it impressive or would you feel the need to dampen it down?
Imagine they shifted all 50 states to support them! Do you say impressive or meh it only takes a small shift?
It is the fascinating disconnect that in a normal situation that would be impressive. So is it that you think Trumps achievements are so massively epic that this pales in comparison (doubtful) or that you dont like Trump? Or is there some other reason you had to play down these things?
"None of this has anything to do with my opinion of Trump. 2024 was an impressive achievement. I never said it wasn't."
Reread your response. You literally said- "Big whoop", "not particularly impressive", "Okay, that's reasonably impressive", "but it's not massive", "is the most impressive. It only takes a small shift though".
In your next comment "Combined with the electoral college results, it represents a clear victory" is about the nearest to acknowledgement you have got but you feel the need to dampen it down in the rest of your comment for some reason.
*Note: correction you also said "I was upset but accepted that he won decisively and that it was fair.". I do not wish to dismiss that acknowledgement.
Let's take it right back to basics, and I was replying to you after you argued with someone else who correctly stated that Trump did not win a majority. And what that traces back to was a comment you made that I didn't even take issue with which was that our discussion was rooted "In a country that clearly voted massively in favour of Trump."
Among the evidence you adduced for this statement was the 49.80% share of the popular vote that he received and the 312 to 226 win in the electoral college, which by the way is only 6 more electoral votes than 2016. This and some other quotes that you provided you intend to show prove that America "clearly voted massively in favour of Trump." I don't find your evidence very persuasive, though there were a couple of things that were somewhat persuasive. So indeed, big whoop about being the only Republican President since GHWB to win the popular vote, because there have only been five times in the history of the Union when the winner has lost the popular vote, and that didn't happen at all in the 20th century. In the 21st century, it was Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016. In fact it's not even true. Bush managed to win the popular vote in 2004 with a majority.
None of your evidence shows it to be a massive nationwide vote in favour of Trump. It's a modest vote in favour of Trump, which is more than enough. It was more than most of us were expecting. It was a decisive and impressive achievement, but it is not a landslide, even with all the swing states. It's nothing like Reagan in 1980 or Bush in 1988. In the electoral college, it's better than GWB did in either of his elections, but not quite up there with Clinton's or Obama's first elections.
@flayman
"Let's take it right back to basics, and I was replying to you after you argued with someone else who correctly stated that Trump did not win a majority."
To which we resolved to your Americanism vs the English which I used. Yet you keep bringing this up as though you are in denial. Are you struggling with this or something? I dont understand your hang up here, Trump won. You have accepted he clearly won. Yet you seem to be stuck on your odd pedantic issue yet claim to have lived in the UK for 26 years. I find it really strange.
"I don't find your evidence very persuasive"
Thats ok, we disagree.
"So indeed, big whoop about being the only Republican President since GHWB to win the popular vote"
I am amazed. I guess that is your opinion but how it is big whoop that he is the only Republican President to win the popular vote since 1988? I find that incredible how you would consider that so insignificant.
"In fact it's not even true. Bush managed to win the popular vote in 2004 with a majority."
How very interesting. I wonder how sky messed that up as they are not exactly pro Trump.
"Yet you keep bringing this up as though you are in denial."
No, I took it back to basics and recounted the timeline. I became interested when I saw what seemed to be an obvious factual error. I have no emotional investment.
"I am amazed. I guess that is your opinion but how it is big whoop that he is the only Republican President to win the popular vote since 1988? I find that incredible how you would consider that so insignificant."
I explained why this is insignificant, but you've left all of that out. And the fact that it's not even true is surely the final nail in the coffin.
@flayman
"No, I took it back to basics and recounted the timeline. I became interested when I saw what seemed to be an obvious factual error."
So you still mistakenly argue it is a factual error because you choose a different language?
"I explained why this is insignificant, but you've left all of that out."
No I didnt I responded directly at sky getting it wrong. If you mean the rest of the piffle I quote you as to why I leave it out-
"It was a decisive and impressive achievement"
"Combined with the electoral college results, it represents a clear victory, and looking at previous elections one could reasonably but tentatively plot a trajectory."
"I was upset but accepted that he won decisively and that it was fair"
"There have been six elections in this century and four of them were less decisive. One was more decisive"
"The seven swing states all went to him. Okay, that's reasonably impressive"
"all 50 states shifted towards the Republican party, is the most impressive"
Whatever you say in your attempt to not seem anti-Trump delusional you have to surround it every time with excuses to drag it down and brush it off. It seems you cant help yourself. I can only assume your opinion or view of Trump can only withstand if you do so which is an amusing duality for me to watch. You pain yourself to say something nice but must soothe yourself by wrapping it in brush-offs. I find it fascinating but it sounds exhausting.
This tracks well with what I said on the other thread and the leap you had to make to overcome the fear of a painful experience of hearing a view (from CNN) that might have something nice to say about Trump- https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2025/07/21/column_social_media_entrapment/#c_5110724
If it helps you any I dont think Trump is a nice guy. When he boasts stupid claims I dont pretend he doesnt say them and currently believe its a flaw of his personality to have to talk as though everything he does is the best ever. I also dont agree with everything he is doing. I dont fear pain from reading pro or anti Trump information. I can read both good and bad stories about him and if my worldview must shift because of something that comes to light then yes it will shift.
This post has been deleted by its author
@flayman
"I'm no longer interested in talking about this because you're not listening to me and it's going nowhere."
That is understandable but thank you for the conversation. You may consider me as not listening but for me this has been very enlightening. I honestly expected you to give up sooner but I am very glad you didnt.
"I honestly expected you to give up sooner but I am very glad you didnt."
So... what? This was all some trolling exercise? I like to argue if logic is in the mix. I don't mind being proven wrong when that happens. I don't like being messed about though. Someone who expects their debating partner to simply give up is approaching it from a different angle, one where their mind is not really open. And I gave up after you continued to put a subjective spin on every point I made, reading intent that was never there. But that does happen on here. I just hoped it would be different.
@flayman
"So... what? This was all some trolling exercise?"
Not at all. You felt I wasnt listening to you but I really was. Its hard to get someone anti-Trump to talk as much as you did, they normally crash out just short of an aneurysm before being able to open a link they fear or saying anything positive at all. You are possibly the first I have encountered able to do that which has been an experience. I really appreciated the 2 part comment you made where you were apprehensive to open a link from an obviously anti-Trump source because you feared its contents, and then after you pushed yourself to watch it and realised it didnt cause your world view to collapse.
"And I gave up after you continued to put a subjective spin on every point I made, reading intent that was never there."
I quoted you. Thats the best part of this conversation, that your own comments were so counter to themselves and not even necessarily across comments but within the same lines. Not often do I get to see the mental gymnastics where you say one thing but soothe your worldview by saying the opposite.
"But that does happen on here. I just hoped it would be different."
Amusingly you were the one who kept repeating your mistake over majority/plurality even after you realised it was a synonym. You intentionally insisted on using a different language to pretend you had a point because the actual language (UK English) which we supposedly both use (you say you have been here for 26 years) even after reading the description which removed any ambiguity. But of course you think I wasnt listening.
I dont take any offence from this, as I said it has been very enlightening and hopefully help me to understand others with similar views.
*Edit:
I forgot to also mention my noticing when you kinda freaked out at the thumb down- https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2025/07/21/column_social_media_entrapment/#c_5111770
People on here have trolls and scripts following them around downvoting anything they write. Dont let that upset your world view because it really doesnt matter.
> Simply I said "You may think that but we can disagree". We can both look at the evidence and come to a differing opinion while even agreeing on the evidence."
Yeah, but you're forgetting that elsewhere you did also call me delusional. I'm not delusional, and I really would like to know how you define "massively" because that's relevant. Engaging with a view that one can change someone else's mind does not require hubris. It is reciprocal. You must be willing and able to to change your own.
> Trump's win being the second clearest this century is also not particularly impressive.", to me that is a mind boggling comment.
Is it really mind boggling? I just tried to put it into context. It's a clear win. How does ranking it as number two out of six really assist? 2000 was not a clear win and remains highly controversial. 2016 was a clear enough win. It was conceded quickly. 2020 was also a clear win by most measures. It was the same electoral result as 2016 but in reverse. It was better than 2016 when taking the popular vote into account. Yet, this was not conceded and it led to unrest, with the outgoing President standing in front of Capitol Hill directing an attempted coup. To this day, he has still not accepted that result.
I find it unremarkable that out of 6 elections this century, the 2024 election was the second most decisive. It's like a tennis stat. Alcaraz has become the third Spaniard in the Open Era to win a Grand Slam after saving match points. Okay. Interesting, but that's as far as it goes.
> However I like talking to opposites because I could gain new insights and factual information to base my opinions on.
You get better results when you keep your mind open. I feel the same. This is why I became so frustrated. Believe me, I would rather be wrong.
@flayman
You really dont have to try and justify your comments. I think I do understand but to avoid any hard feelings...
"Yes, I am anti-Trump. I don't like him"
I know. When I use the term anti-Trump I mean it as the extreme position I mentioned to you earlier. Where Trump can do nothing right and is the root of all evil etc etc. The kind of extremist position that makes idiots of people falling over themselves to cry the end of the world. If I didnt make myself clear I dont think you are that far as you managed to hold a conversation without your head exploding and even managed to see CNN praise Trump.
"That's quite patronizing. You quoted me selectively."
I wasnt trying to patronize I just couldnt think of a better description. And yes I selectively quoted you, that was intentional to show that you wrote something nice but surrounded by writing to put down or dampen the nice thing.
"I think we must have different definitions of "massively", because although Trump clearly won in 2024 with a better result than 2016 and some decent achievements, for me it does not stack up to America voting massively for him."
I think you will find I answered this issue 2 days ago- https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2025/07/21/column_social_media_entrapment/#c_5111513. Simply I said "You may think that but we can disagree". We can both look at the evidence and come to a differing opinion while even agreeing on the evidence. I dont have the hubris to think I can change your mind but by discussing with someone of very different views and perspectives we can often gain access to information we wouldnt normally see. It would be the opposite of an echo chamber.
@flayman
"Yeah, but you're forgetting that elsewhere you did also call me delusional"
We obviously have very different ideas of massive but the delusional comment was for you saying things like "Trump's win being the second clearest this century is also not particularly impressive.", to me that is a mind boggling comment. The justification- "There have been six elections in this century and four of them were less decisive. One was more decisive." means this win was in the top 2 of 6 and the one above it was (I quote sky again) "Trump's win this year is the clearest one this century other than Obama's 2008 landslide.".
"Engaging with a view that one can change someone else's mind does not require hubris. It is reciprocal. You must be willing and able to to change your own."
Changing someone's mind and changing the mind of the person ideologically across from you is very different. You have your opinions but it is highly unlikely I would be able to move them (usually) because as ideologically opposite I probably dont have the correct standing in your (person opposite) view. However I like talking to opposites because I could gain new insights and factual information to base my opinions on.
In fact one thing that irks me with the many attacks on Trump (I have said this a few times in his first term) that all the stupid attacks (appearance etc) and lies (Steele, lying media reports, etc) just adds a lot of noise to be filtered out to get to the truth. I would prefer to be criticizing him for actual misbehaviour instead of made up stories and stupid personal attacks. With the varying events of the last decade Trump really could do criminal acts and it is unlikely people would believe it outside of ideological dedication (MAGA vs anti-Trump).
And if the facts are as damning as claimed then Obama could lose a lot of his polished reputation
Okay, so if you really are listening then just listen please and really give it a go. Yes, I am anti-Trump. I don't like him. I think he's tearing the fabric of the Constitution. I have reasons. Rule of law is very important to me, and not just me. President of the United States calling for a federal judge to be impeached because they went against him. That's bad. He's taking on the judicial branch and they are mostly backing down. I suppose you could also call that an impressive achievement.
I'm not rabidly anti-Trump. I don't call him Orange Fuhrer or any of that nonsense. I would like to be wrong about him. I would like to be wrong about climate change and all sorts of other things. I hope I am. Truly, in some ways I can't help but admire him. It's not mental gymnastics. That's quite patronizing. You quoted me selectively.
Let's talk about your beef with me continuing to raise the thing about majority/plurality. Really pay attention to this. I've been trying to explain why we were even talking. I made a reply to you but was not particulary interested in the thread until I saw you write something that I thought was simply wrong, and I wanted to correct it. I now understand that it was not that simple. But that's why we're here. It went from there. I'm not fixated on it. I get it. Different meanings of the same term. Which brings me to the crux of it.
I think we must have different definitions of "massively", because although Trump clearly won in 2024 with a better result than 2016 and some decent achievements, for me it does not stack up to America voting massively for him. I explained my reasoning. So let me define "massively" as an adverb. Oxford dictionary:
----%<----
massively (adverb)
on a vast scale:
"biotechnology is expected to contribute massively to the global economy"
to a very great extent; extremely:
"research at all levels is massively underfunded"
----%<----
There are other meanings such as "in a very large and heavy or solid form", but this is the best fit. Trump won in 2024 with not quite an absolute majority of the popular vote, and his share was about 3% larger than Harris'. He took 312 electoral votes to her 226. He did well. Good for him. But he did not win on a vast scale or to a very great extent. It was not as close as 2016, but it was still pretty close. Not a huge margin. He did not achieve the feat of being the only Republican President since 1988 to win the popular vote. That turned out to be false. He did, however, achieve some other impressive statistics. For my part, I am glad that the election was not contested and that there was no serious violence.
I can accept what I don't like if it's true. I cannot accept what is not true. You have not backed up your claim of "a country that clearly voted massively in favour of Trump." to my satisfaction. If you have any other evidence that you would like to share, then please do and I will evaluate it. Hopefully now we are closer to some sort of understanding.
This post has been deleted by its author
"That means he scored more votes than Harris (74.4 million), or any other candidate. No Republican has managed that feat since 2004." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5w9w160xdo"
Interesting. I just noticed this statement you'd made in an earlier comment on the thread. It seemed to have escaped your notice when you gave the factually incorrect Sky News quote. On the other hand, that quote saying he is the second Republican since 1988 to win the popular vote is awkward. Are they not including 1988? I suppose not. I mean, it's sort of neither here nor there. Apart from himself, he's only the second Republican President to have come after GHWB. I could state that as "He's the first Republican President to win the popular vote since the last time he won, when he lost the popular vote, and GWB did the same thing."
@flayman
"Interesting. I just noticed this statement you'd made in an earlier comment on the thread. It seemed to have escaped your notice when you gave the factually incorrect Sky News quote."
It entirely escaped my notice otherwise I would have called out the sky page. I am surprised sky managed to get that so wrong. Without wanting to fall back into the majority conversation the BBC article showed Trump has the 'relative majority' as well as explaining various measurements of his win, even though the BBC is anti-Trump. I picked the sky link as they are not fans of Trump either so doubted they would say something in his favour voluntarily.
" I am surprised sky managed to get that so wrong. "
They didn't get it wrong. We both got it wrong. We've been saying "the first Republican President since 1988", when Sky said "the second Republican President since 1988". Something happened in 1988, and now it's happened twice more. That really takes it down a peg, especially since there are only two people who have been a Republican President after George H W Bush.
Radicalized? This stuff is actually happening. People are being turned away or turned down because of stuff they wrote years ago which may have been venting or tongue-in-cheek or whatever. But it was free expression and this article addresses precisely how that free expression is being chilled. It offers advice in case one was not aware of how exposed one is.
This stuff is happening and this article is just a personal story of that. The article is in the 'Column' category, which is under the 'Off Beat' section of The Reg. This is where you'll find the columnists' personal opinions, which by definition will not be neutral. These types of articles have always been opinion pieces and are not meant to be pure facts. If you want dry tech news, avoid the 'Column' category.
I've read El Reg for well over 20 years and it's always had opinion pieces, the same as every news outlet does. Unlike Fox News though, El Reg is not 100% opinion.
Just got back to the US from France and had a beagle sniff my baggage at the carousel. It’s the first time I’ve seen any kind of baggage inspection since the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak in the UK. No one cared about my phone or even my passport-Global Entry facial recognition scan, that’s not new.
I'd hope that the reported excesses of US customs are the result of over zealous and stupid agents. But it seems we cannot have balanced political leadership, swinging from excessive left to right, or rather spoilt brat behaviour. Seeing as we vote, we have to take some blame. When I listen to some people on here and their reaction it seems no better than the politicians, it's extreme and hate filled. So maybe we should look to ourselves first and start behaving as we would have our elected leaders. In face-to-face conversation I come across people who have no understanding of the principles of free speech and just want poeple they disagree with shut down (or worse). You reap what you sow. First stop believing what people say, especially media and politicans, because 80% is misleading or even downright lies. Look at their actions, look at their history. I mean half the Labour cabinet are Fabians or WEF. Two organisations that are not interested in democracy in the slightest and want to forcibly impose their ideology. Most of their MPs are ideologs who will put their ideology above the well being of the people. Give me a swindling Tory any day, or just anyone that isn't filled with self-righteous ideology.
I've been running what, at the moment, is purely a thought experiment.
Create new email addresses, get prepay SIM cards from countries that don't require user verification.
Use AI to create images that look very very like me, possibly with embedded 'spoiler' code.
Create a series of social media and other accounts with minor variations of my name and personal details using those images, phone numbers and emails.
Possibly (I need to look into it) put virtual or prepay debit cards behind Google Pay/Apple Pay on those accounts. Banking KYC is a challenge.
Use AI agents to create activity trails, some backdated.
Use them for Uber rides/hotel bookings/small grocery purchases while travelling.
The purpose is purely to create a confused trail online while remaining reasonably straightforward in the real world.
The trouble with social media is that without the same level of accountability we impose on each other socially, people get away with behaving in a way online they would never dream of or get away with face to face and in front of groups of people (generally speaking) and self moderation doesn't seem to exist much these days. There are probably quite a few people like this example, who, if the boarder people pointed to some post somewhere and said "ok explain please...." they would probably cringe and/or regret it instantly or try and explain it away as a simple stupid post. Social media is a cultural disease and I for one will be glad if/when it is gone. I deleted my social media accounts and I bet it would be possible to find posts and so on from years ago somehow still and I would, I would cringe my face off and think "what a total and utter moron...why did I write/post that"... Hindsight eh?
But the US is Freedom and the US Government decides what Freedom is so saying anything critical of the US government is un-Free speech.
Basically all foreigners are committing un-American activities at all times and deserve what comes to them.
They will let you in because they have to let us in. It's your sovereign right to enter the country as long as they are satisfied with your ID. We The People. However, that doesn't stop them arresting you if there is something resembling cause, and it doesn't stop them harassing you and going through your shit (even seizing it). That sort of thing routinely happened to David House because of his involvement in WikiLeaks.
There is absolutely no way you can be denied entry to the US as a citizen because you have an absolute, Constitutional right to enter. This is a nonsense article. This only applies to non-citizens and I have no idea why this guy is claiming he had to avoid being targeted. Even if they had searched his phone and found evidence to overthrow the US government or any other serious crime, he would still be admitted into the US but just held for that.
... someone googles my name and discovers my social network accounts all end in a black hole, which will alert them to the obvious fact that the accounts have been deleted, at which point I will have been jailed, waterboarded, and disappeared to any one of a number of "detention" centres inside or outside the country.
Oh, spare me your damned crocodile tears!
And spare me your blathering on about a thing that has never happened! Is this what this publication has sank to? Fear mongering propaganda for a political agenda?
And BTW!
U.S. citizens cannot be denied entry into the country for any reason, including social media posts. However, visitors and visa holders are subject to increased scrutiny at the border, and their electronic devices may be searched without a warrant. Reports indicate that some travelers have faced detentions or denied entry due to controversial social media posts or messages. It is advisable for travelers to be cautious about their online activities and sensitive content, as these could potentially lead to consequences at the border.
NBC News
+4
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=45a40ffbc01d98cfc8f49ac8d5868f123e7f0c65976eec3ec74ab9d27f0ba09dJmltdHM9MTc1MzE0MjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=289e85d2-a906-6a3e-2c3a-93d0a8e66b28&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmJjbmV3cy5jb20vbmV3cy91cy1uZXdzL2RldGFpbmVkLWN1c3RvbXMtaW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbC10cmF2ZWwtY2JwLXNvY2lhbC1tZWRpYS13aGF0LWtub3ctcmNuYTIwNzIyOA&ntb=1
I'd take the author way more seriously if they didn't resort to using silly terms which are really just their thoughts of a dystopian future.
Is going through customs a difficult process? It's supposed to be - some countries way more than other. Has the author been to any others where suspicion is the default?
Perhaps I'm being overly naive here, but you have a right to entry, period.
If you're rather overly unpleasant and wanting to elicit a reaction, a customs official would prefer not to waste their time on you - you aren't as significant as you have led yourself to believe you are. Having said that, are there customs officials who may be more harsh in their mannerisms than others as they judge you to be a threat or not? Of course, that's the randomness of reality.
But still, they cannot deny you entry - they can detain you for some time as they query you, but your right to entry is absolute.
Also, where's the bloody IT angle on this? Somebody deleting their social presence? This is what we've been reduced to?
You deleted all your incriminating evidence and then posted about it here for them to read.
So there was clearly something to worry about, now they know that, I assume the next step is ban you from America because you are hiding it.
On tip of all of that, just the words used in this and the negative light it puts the USA in I am sure would be enough to be a danger to their patriotism.
Thank you for documenting your dissent.
...2025 was when it all changed. When socials transformed from self-expression to entrapment. From now on, every word you write and every photo and video and podcast you post will be analyzed, weighed, and judged for something far more sinister than targeted advertising...
Bleh. It has always been the case. Now is simply the time the bubble popped.
And it t'was about time. It's just a shame it had to happen this way. Could've come to realization in a much more painless way.
Humanity has had a hierarchy in information sharing that has been going on for thousands of years:
Outside of professional information sharing (science, reports, etc), it has mostly gone like so:
- Share opinions with friends and family, and whoever you can personally reach (say, however many your local bar can hold, or however many can hear you when you scream in the local park): Everybody
- Reach a slightly larger audience (speeches, small scale local politics): Whoever gets the training and skills to reach that audience.
- Reach a larger, but still small audience (local newspaper reporting, etc): First level of either some specific training, or some skills.
- Increase on this: bigger newspaper, TV: Next level, needs improvement on skills mentioned above
- All levels above: Politics at scale, Media, TV, Audio-visual, entertainment, etc: substantial improvement on skills mentioned above. Years of studies for reporters and public figures (deontology, dos and don't, public relations studies, etc), one in thousands or one in a million natural talent for artists, PLUS studies still.
- But wait, you were in the past, centuries or thousands of years ago ? Sure. To be heard by many, you had to be a scholar, a priest or a leader (preferably a military one).
So reaching a larger audience automatically meant learning along about what comes with speaking to an audience of millions.
Then boom, what do you know, everybody and their brother can reach millions, with zero awareness of what goes with it, and with zero requirements of content quality - just a high enoug shock or kitten value.
T'was about time. Humanity has forever paid, written books, fought and died, for the right to remain private, then overnight we start paying to share our daily farts with the whole World. Gimmie a break.
The US is not going to prevent a US citizen from entering the country because they don't like Donald Trump. Isn't that what you're hoping we'll all think? That the US has slipped into a one-man dictatorship? You'll not find a place with more rancorous - or protected - political debate.
You really think the TSA is going to prevent a US citizen from reentering the country just because of some political speech? If so, you're daft. Or rather, you want to feel like you're oppressed (throws the back of her hand to her forehead and nearly faints). Thank goodness we have people like you to take up the struggle, etc.
Now, if you're traveling on a Syria passport, and your phone is full of "I ❤️ ISIS" memes, then hopefully you'll have a serious problem at the border. You really can't see the difference?
Please, come back and tell us how you were put in a CIA black hole site because you had a Kamala Harris 2028 lock screen or once posted potty words to POTUS on Twitter.
Publishing this twaddle is a new low for the Register.
(Before the inevitable accusation from the author, I didn't vote for Trump).
...Publishing this twaddle is a new low for the Register...
I mostly agree with that. It's not the highest of the highest levels we've seen here.
There used to be a joke about a certain Communist leader in Eastern Europe back in the time. Most members of the new pro-Soviet government were had prices on their heads during the previous regimes and were living in hiding. This guy also claimed he lived in hiding. The joke went that he was living in semi-hiding - meaning - he was hiding indeed, but no one was actually looking for him. This article sounds a bit similar.
Still, there is one thing - the current big boss in the White House WOULD kick you out for a Kamala Harris screen lock if he could. This has not happened before. We have been close, but it has not happened in recent history. Was a bit of the case during the McCarty scare 70ish years ago, but even then it was very localized. Back then, it was "I want to kick you out because of who I claim you are", today the logic is "I want to kick you out because of who I claim you should be..."
Those goalposts are constantly moving, because such a narrative needs the fuel of someone being the enemy - constantly - in order to function. Theoretically, should he get all the power and the ability to do what he wants to do - he'll keep the enemy stream going. And any targeted group being a finite quantity - this will go as a brush fire till there's nothing and no one left to deport.
If this article is an indication of anything, however, it is of Americans starting to lose their virginity on the free speech front. We were living in such an efficient, beautiful oxygen bubble of free speech (a beautiful thing) that we ended up with zero immunity against the most basic viruses that bite you back when you overshare. I just hope we'll be able to build this immunity now without a catastrophic thinning of the herd.
It is an absolute shame that we had to get to this to start seeing what social media really does, it could have been much more painless. But well.
"..if I rejoined Facebook – 15 years after I got the measure of Mark Zuckerberg and "deactivated" my account – Meta would offer to restore all my past posts and connections."
If you do it correctly, and deleted all your comments over several months and let the fb system bring you your older and older posts as it searched high and low through the servers so as to have content to present to you when you logged in, then deleted friends only after getting everything you left on *their* pages.. yup you can erase yur existence from fb.
Years ago, when fb demanded that users post with their real names.. that is when I tunneled into my pages, deleted everything over months and finally cleared it all out. Once that was done I deleted all my friends and waited a month or so to go back in and check what was left. Had two friends that popped up so I re-friended them and waited until the posts I'd made on their pages hit my feed... deleted that and unfriended them yet again an waited another month.
On that last login, I got nothing but random names on my page as the system barfed up people it thought I may know.
Use the system to bring your content to you, and if your patient and let the changes you make float across the server systems, you can get free and clear of much of it.
Typical leftie-liberal TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) rant.
In order to access a US citizen's gear - ICE / CBP would need evidence of a crime and/or court order. Otherwise it's illegal search & seizure. Impossible to deny you entry.
If you are a foreigner, it's another story - no one said that you HAVE to be granted entry to the USA...
Typical reactionary brianwashed MAGA response.
Do you need a list of all the illegal things Trump has done? I presume Fox never provided you with them.
Anyway, read this, and learn something:
"While historically rare, U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) Officers are authorized to search electronic devices of any international traveler entering or leaving the United States, including U.S. citizens." - https://hselaw.com/news-and-information/legalcurrents/preparing-for-electronic-device-searches-at-united-states-borders/
I've been criticising the orange fascist, Brexiteers and Reform for years and will continue to, even if Farage becomes the next PM.
If you are American and really paranoid, just get a new, cheap smartphone, create new accounts (especially X) and link to a few MAGA nutters. In the unlikely event that they do check your phone, you'll be fine. Despite the rhetoric and news stories, the organised crime syndicates that run our countries are surprisingly disorganised. Just appear reasonably normal and they will pass you by. There are enough obvious weirdos out there to keep them busy.
