[mytailorisrich]

Yes, I think the actual contents of those messages would make all the difference in assessing the US response.

Note, too that last month two researchers (yes, actual researchers) threw bombs at a Russian consulate in France, so the argument that messages are just banter among friends and that academics would never actually do anything 'stupid' has been severely weakened.

[ndsipa_pomu]

The problem is surely that by considering opinions against the U.S. administration, that it produces a large number of non-compliant visitors. I think it's counter-productive as it just means that most visitors would then have a good reason to hide accounts and conversations. I suppose it "works" in reducing the number of visitors, but is that really of any benefit to the U.S.?

I think it would provide better intelligence if the more casual criticisms of policy were ignored and more attention paid to violent/threatening content. This would allow authorities to focus attention on other people involved in the communication which would probably be of more benefit than trying to target all visitors that disagree with policies.