by: The Washington Eye
In a move that sharpens the intersection between digital life and geopolitical gatekeeping, the U.S. Embassy in India has announced that all applicants for F, M, or J non-immigrant visas—including students and exchange visitors—must ensure their social media accounts are publicly visible before attending their visa interviews. Though framed as a routine vetting enhancement, this shift reflects a growing global trend: the transformation of social media from a personal outlet into a tool for border control.

Digital Identity as Border Infrastructure

In recent years, governments have increasingly turned to social media as an unofficial extension of their border apparatus. The United States began requesting social media identifiers from visa applicants in 2019, but the new directive escalates this protocol by requiring public access to those accounts. The goal, according to U.S. officials, is to allow consular officers to verify identity and detect any perceived threats based on content, affiliations, or ideological expression.

This evolution is not merely administrative—it is philosophical. National borders are no longer guarded only by passports and biometric data, but by the narratives and signals encoded in online lives. What an applicant posts, likes, or comments on can now shape their ability to cross borders. This represents a profound shift in how governments conceptualize security and identity in an age of digital transparency.

Surveillance, Speech, and the Cost of Visibility

The implications for applicants are not limited to logistical hurdles. This policy introduces a clear tension between transparency and personal freedom. Students and exchange visitors—many of whom are politically active or engaged in global conversations—are now forced to weigh the consequences of their online expression against their hopes of international mobility.

By compelling public visibility, the U.S. is effectively flattening the distinction between public speech and personal browsing. Posts that are satirical, political, or critical—particularly in areas like U.S. foreign policy or global human rights—may be scrutinized not in their intended context, but through the lens of national security. For many, especially those from politically volatile or socially repressive regions, this opens the door to self-censorship and diminishes the internet as a space of free discourse.

Passports in the Platform Age

This policy also underscores how access to education and international exchange—long symbols of soft power and global diplomacy—are becoming increasingly conditional on digital conformity. In 2023–24, over 330,000 Indian students were enrolled in U.S. institutions, making India the largest source of international students in the U.S. The new visibility requirement arrives at a time when students are preparing for fall admissions, turning routine social media posts into potential gatekeepers of opportunity.

More broadly, it highlights the growing power asymmetry between states and individuals in the age of data. A visa applicant’s curated digital footprint becomes not only a résumé but a risk profile. The burden to prove innocence—or ideological neutrality—is placed squarely on the individual, even before any in-person engagement with the U.S. immigration system.

A Final Note: The Border Is Now Also Online

By making social media visibility a prerequisite for entry, the U.S. is formalizing what has long been informally true: our online lives are now subject to the same scrutiny as our documents and fingerprints. This development sits at the crossroads of surveillance, migration policy, and global inequality—where the politics of borders increasingly bleed into the politics of platforms. For international students, the implications are clear: in the pursuit of knowledge, even self-expression must now pass through a national security filter.

by: The Washington Eye

At this year’s Glastonbury Festival held at Worthy Farm in Somerset, UK, the politically outspoken punk-rap duo Bob Vylan sparked a wave of both condemnation and celebration after frontman Bobby Vylan led the crowd in chanting “Death, death to the IDF,” referring to the Israeli Defense Forces. The controversial moment took place on 28th June, 2025, Saturday evening at the West Holts stage and was broadcast live on BBC platforms, prompting immediate backlash from festival organizers, British politicians, and the Israeli Embassy. However, it also garnered immense praise from pro-Palestinian supporters within the crowd and around the world, igniting a fresh debate over freedom of expression and political activism in art.

Bob Vylan, a London-based duo made up of vocalist Bobby Vylan and drummer Bobbie Vylan, are well known for their fusion of punk and grime and for delivering bold, politically charged messages through their music. Their set ended with strong support for Palestine, with messages like “The UN calls it a genocide. The BBC calls it a conflict” displayed on stage screens. As Bobby Vylan urged the crowd to chant against the Israeli military, the atmosphere turned electric. Thousands of festivalgoers cheered and echoed the slogans, many waving Palestinian flags and raising their fists in support. Online, the moment went viral, with hashtags like #FreePalestine and #BobVylan trending on platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok. One festival attendee commented that it was “uncomfortable but necessary,” and others praised the band for speaking out when many others remain silent.

In contrast, Glastonbury’s organizers were swift and firm in their response. In an official statement, they expressed being “appalled” and stated that there is no place at the festival for antisemitism, hate speech, or incitement to violence. The BBC, which aired the performance live, soon removed it from its iPlayer platform and displayed a warning on screen about “very strong and discriminatory language” during the broadcast. The incident drew widespread political condemnation. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the chant “appalling hate speech,” while Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy demanded an explanation from BBC Director General Tim Davie on how such language was allowed to air live. Health Secretary Wes Streeting echoed similar views, calling for both the BBC and Glastonbury to take accountability.

The Israeli Embassy in London issued a statement expressing that it was “deeply disturbed” by the rhetoric, labeling it “inflammatory” and an incitement to violence. It emphasized that such slogans not only target Israeli soldiers but are a threat to the state’s existence and safety. Meanwhile, Avon and Somerset Police confirmed that they are reviewing the footage to determine if Bob Vylan’s actions fall under hate speech or criminal incitement.

Despite the political fallout, public reaction remained sharply divided. Many praised Bob Vylan for their courage, describing their stance as a necessary act of resistance in the face of global injustice. Videos from the performance show a visibly emotional crowd chanting in unison and embracing the pro-Palestinian message. Supporters argue that artists should not be silenced for opposing what they perceive as state-sponsored violence and military oppression. One attendee stated, “Bob Vylan said what millions of us feel. Silence is violence.” Activist groups hailed the moment as a victory for free speech and solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Bob Vylan was not the only act to speak out. The Irish-language rap group Kneecap also led pro-Palestinian chants during their set, despite controversy over one member’s legal issues in Northern Ireland. British-Pakistani singer Nadine Shah read a powerful open letter criticizing UK complicity in the Gaza war, further reinforcing the political tone of the festival. Folk singer Billy Bragg defended the performances, saying Glastonbury has always been a space for challenging power and speaking uncomfortable truths.

As Glastonbury wraps up, the fallout from Bob Vylan’s chant continues to ripple across media, politics, and public discourse. The incident has reignited long-standing debates over the limits of artistic expression, the fine line between protest and hate speech, and the role of cultural platforms in political advocacy. Whether viewed as a dangerous incitement or a bold act of resistance, Bob Vylan’s performance ensured that this year’s festival will be remembered not just for its music, but for igniting a fierce global conversation on Palestine, power, and free speech.

by: The Washington Eye
Currency is one of the most significant inventions in human history, yet many of us overlook its importance in our daily lives. At first glance, money seems simple—coins in your pocket, bills in your wallet, or digital numbers in a bank app. But beneath its surface lies a complex system of trust, governance, and economic coordination. Currency works because people believe it works. It is not just a tool for buying and selling; it is a shared agreement among individuals and institutions that a certain object—whether paper, metal, or digital code—holds value and can be exchanged for goods and services.

Before currency came into existence, human societies relied on the barter system. In barter, people exchanged goods and services directly. This method, while natural in small communities, had major limitations. It required a double coincidence of wants: both parties had to want what the other had. If you had wheat and wanted shoes, but the shoemaker didn’t want wheat, you couldn’t trade. Currency solved this problem by serving as a universally accepted medium of exchange. Early currencies included commodities like salt, cattle, or gold—items considered valuable and difficult to fake. Eventually, these evolved into coinage and paper money, often backed by physical commodities such as gold and silver. In modern times, we use fiat money, which has no intrinsic value but is declared legal tender by governments and accepted because people trust the system behind it.

Today, central banks and financial institutions manage currency through complex tools like interest rates, inflation targeting, and money supply regulation. When handled well, these tools can stabilize the economy, foster investment, and generate employment. But mismanagement—such as excessive money printing—can lead to disastrous consequences, including hyperinflation. Historical examples like Zimbabwe or Venezuela demonstrate how quickly a currency can become worthless when public trust is lost. Without faith in currency, prices skyrocket, savings vanish, and economies collapse.

Now imagine a world without currency. Would we return to barter? Perhaps, but that would bring back the same inefficiencies that currency was invented to solve. More likely, alternative systems would emerge. These could include commodity money like gold or oil, decentralized digital currencies such as Bitcoin, or even systems of social credit or labor exchange. Each of these, however, has its flaws. Cryptocurrency, for example, promises decentralization but remains volatile and vulnerable to speculation. Commodity money might favor nations rich in resources and deepen inequality. Social credit systems, while potentially fair, could also become tools of control and surveillance.

A world without currency would likely cause global trade to collapse. Currency provides a common unit of account that allows us to price goods, calculate profits, and manage contracts. Without it, international transactions would become chaotic. Supply chains would stall, and financial markets would lose their foundations. Moreover, debt and long-term contracts rely on stable money. Without currency, these agreements lose meaning. Lending would slow down, investments would halt, and the global economy would become stagnant.

Some idealists imagine a future where money is no longer needed—where technology, automation, and abundance make everything freely accessible. In such a society, resources could be distributed based on need rather than ability to pay. This vision, promoted by movements like The Venus Project, presents a post-currency economy guided by logic and sustainability. But achieving this would require more than technological advancement. It would demand a radical transformation in human behavior, moving from competition to cooperation, and from ownership to shared access. Such a shift, while theoretically possible, is not likely in the near future.

Ultimately, the question is not whether we can eliminate currency, but how we can use it more equitably. As the world becomes increasingly digital, currencies will continue to evolve—through blockchain, central bank digital currencies, and global financial reforms. But the fundamental role of currency as a tool for coordination and trust will remain. Rather than dreaming of a currency-free utopia, our focus should be on building systems that make currency work for everyone, not just the privileged few. Currency is not just about money; it is about meaning, fairness, and the structure of our economic lives. Without it, society as we know it would unravel.