#4 Gray Area

Last week it was revealed that Google handed over data of a student who participated in pro-Palestinian protests at Cornell University to the Homeland Security Investigations unit within the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency without granting the student any opportunity to object. These data can be obtained by U.S. authorities through administrative subpoenas issued without a court order or suspicion of criminal activity. Thus, only a bureaucratic signature is sufficient to compel students to share their digital information with the state.

This situation is not merely a technical procedure but a digital-era reflection of the Panopticon logic. The Panopticon was a prison design in which inmates, uncertain whether they were being watched at any given moment, automatically disciplined their own behavior. Today students must adjust their conduct and censor their speech in anticipation of constant surveillance, aligning themselves with official state policies and the interests of social media giants.

Last month Amnesty International revealed that the U.S. government is using various artificial intelligence algorithms to identify pro-Palestinian migrants and university students. For instance Babel X, developed by the U.S.-based private software company Babel Street, can collect a person’s social media posts IP addresses employment history and even mobile device identifiers using just their name email address or phone number. Even more dangerous is the “persistent search” feature which ensures that once individuals enter the system’s radar they are continuously monitored automatically labeled as suspicious and subjected to uninterrupted surveillance.

On the other hand Immigration OS a surveillance platform developed by Palantir Technologies for U.S. authorities compresses the entire lives of migrants into algorithmic scores and lines of code. Thus cold mathematical calculations determine who will be deported or classified as a “risk.” In this way data are now collected not merely for commercial gain but to decide who will be expelled.

Even more striking is that this process is carried out through artificial intelligence algorithms. The labeling of a post as “supporting terrorism” is now determined by AI code and the U.S. applies this algorithmic stamp without question. This is the most current form of the modern Panopticon. Pro-Palestinian students do not merely know they are being watched; they are forced to self-censor their very thoughts out of fear that the algorithm will miss nothing. As a result surveillance ceases to be an external pressure and transforms into a constant internalized discipline and internalized self-censorship.

One link in this digital surveillance chain is the anonymous website Canary Mission which secretly places pro-Palestinian students academics and campus organizations on blacklists branding them as “potential threats.” A single social media post one utterance during a panel or participation in a protest is enough to add a person’s name to digital blacklists. These lists are sometimes used by U.S. official authorities as actual sources of intelligence. Anonymous lists prepared in the shadows merge with state surveillance mechanisms to create a modern McCarthyism. The difference is that the names on these lists are often kept secret from the public. While these names are archived in the cold databases of algorithms and files this culture of secrecy completely eliminates the ability of those listed to defend themselves.

Blacklists are also shaped by the invisible algorithms of social media giants. Meta’s claim to always support freedom of expression is the clearest example of the digital surveillance and censorship network at work. According to Human Rights Watch’s report between October and November 2023 more than 1050 social media posts were censored and removed in over 60 countries nearly all of them—1049—were peaceful pro-Palestinian content. Only one pro-Israel post was deleted by Meta.

Moreover Meta continues this digital pressure through even more invisible methods. Leading among these is “shadow banning.” Under this method pro-Palestinian content is rendered invisible in search results feeds and recommendations without any notification to the user. While users believe they are freely posting their content’s visibility likes and comments decline without explanation as their words are buried in algorithmic darkness. Thus social media giants that claim to offer a free public sphere systematically steer users toward restricted domains.

In this context Shoshana Zuboff’s concept of “surveillance capitalism” provides a crucial framework for understanding the situation. According to Zuboff companies like Google and Meta collect user data not only for advertising purposes but to generate behavioral surplus. In other words human digital media experiences are transformed into raw material for predicting and guiding future behavior. Thus companies wield the power to both anticipate and shape consumer preferences using the data they collect.

The political consequences of this economic order identified by Zuboff cannot be ignored. The logic of behavioral manipulation she describes materializes in the invisibility of pro-Palestinian content and its suppression with the support of U.S. authorities. As a result the economic infrastructure of surveillance capitalism no longer serves merely as a mechanism for monetizing data. Consequently the U.S. government and social media giants have become the arbiters determining which narratives rise and which are silenced through Panopticon-like surveillance mechanisms and AI-powered censorship functions.

In recent days the United States denied visas to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his 80-member delegation preventing their participation in the United Nations General Assembly in New York. In the aftermath of this crisis Donald Trump threatened to deny visas to Brazilian officials to block their attendance at the UN General Assembly. The visa bans introduced by the U.S. ahead of the UN General Assembly have become a display of power determining who has the right to speak and who will be silenced on the world’s most important political stage.

Yet the United Nations Charter adopted in San Francisco in 1945 was founded on the principle of equal representation for all member states. According to the 1947 agreement between the UN and the United States the host country is obligated to grant unconditional visas to all diplomatic delegations regardless of the state of diplomatic relations. However the Trump administration treats this obligation not as a host responsibility but as a sovereign right granting it special privileges.

The U.S. use of visas as a political tool is most clearly evident in the Palestinian issue. At a time when Palestinian statehood is being recognized by various countries the refusal to issue visas to President Abbas and his 80-member delegation is a direct attempt to silence the Palestinian people. Although Palestine holds only observer status at the UN and thus cannot vote it does have the right to speak. Now with this U.S. stance even Palestine’s limited right to speak has been stripped away.

In contrast Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any other country in history. Yet Israel maintains its impunity through the protection afforded by the United States’ permanent veto power in the UN Security Council. Indeed since 1945 the United States has vetoed 94 Security Council resolutions 50 of which were against Israel. Thus while Palestinians are denied voting rights at the UN and silenced by visa bans Israel’s violations are effectively legitimized within the UN system.

Threats against Brazil signal a situation that goes beyond the Palestinian issue. Trump threatened to deny visas to the Brazilian delegation and thereby block its participation in the UN General Assembly citing Brazil’s support for Palestine and its stance under Bolsonaro. Traditionally Brazil delivers the opening address at the UN General Assembly each year followed by the U.S. president. The risk of Brazil’s speaking right being seized in this manner not only threatens this tradition but represents a rupture that undermines the founding values of the United Nations.

The U.S. transformation of visas into a tool of pressure is not new. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution Iranian diplomats have frequently faced delays or denials of their visas. For example in 2014 Hamid Aboutalebi Iran’s Permanent Representative to the UN was denied a visa based on alleged links to the hostage crisis decades earlier. Similarly Russian diplomats have previously been subjected to restrictions. In short diplomatic visas have become one of the most visible instruments through which the U.S. administration imposes its own definitions of enemies onto the global system.

The most symbolic moment in this chain occurred in 1988 when the U.S. refused to issue a visa to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat prompting the UN General Assembly to move its session to Geneva for the first time in history. This extraordinary decision allowed the UN to preserve its own functioning without yielding to U.S. arbitrary restrictions. Today the systematic instrumentalization of visas by the U.S. makes similar solutions inevitable. It is clear that the United States is now determined not to fulfill its host responsibilities but to transform its hosting role into a tool for imposing its political dominance.

The U.S. use of its authority to grant visas as a tool of pressure and coercion symbolizes the erosion of the foundational principles of the international order. Institutions like the United Nations were built on founding principles of equal representation and universal participation. Yet by interpreting its host responsibilities as sovereign authority and weaponizing them for political gain the United States is undermining these foundational balances. As a result the impartial and inclusive character of international institutions like the UN is damaged and the legitimacy of the international order is increasingly questioned.

The ongoing visa crises are clear indicators of whose international law applies and whose is suspended. There is no progress toward Kant’s vision of universal peace one of the UN’s founding values. Instead Carl Schmitt’s words are becoming increasingly relevant: “The sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” In other words although rules appear on paper to apply universally in the functioning of this system the United States determines who speaks and who is silenced. Thus the right to representation is reduced from a universal principle to a privilege that can be suspended according to U.S. interests. Whether such an order can be sustained remains a major question. As long as these “exceptional circumstances” within the United Nations persist it will be difficult for the UN to transcend its role as a stage legitimizing the interests of major powers.

In recent days two acts of violence in the United States captured public attention: the assassination attempt on Charlie Kirk and the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a subway. At first glance these appear as isolated incidents but they are in fact manifestations of a deeper societal unrest. This wave of violence reveals that the American public’s sense of security has shattered and that violence is becoming increasingly normalized. Each attack further weakens the foundational claim of the American dream: the shared life.

The current landscape of the United States reveals that recent acts of violence are not merely isolated outbursts but signals of broader social disintegration. Violence in America has become so widespread and deeply rooted that it can no longer be explained as individual aberrations. Moreover as these roots continue to be nourished they threaten the American public with far more comprehensive security crises beyond mere loss of life.

Racism income inequality drug crises—these have long been corroding the veins of American society. For example 83 percent of Black Americans and 61 percent of white Americans still view racism as widespread. In 2011 85 percent of Black Americans believed progress had been made in civil rights; today that figure is only 53 percent. Gentrification inadequate healthcare deepening educational inequalities and repeated incidents of police violence are steadily eroding Americans’ trust in their own state and institutions. This distrust weakens social solidarity while creating fertile ground for the roots of violence to spread.

The most striking aspect is that violence has now infiltrated the most vulnerable areas of American society. Since January alone 47 schools have been targeted by armed attacks resulting in 19 deaths. Each of these attacks opens a new wound in the American conscience and serves as a concrete sign of the rapid erosion of fear in school corridors and the collapse of trust in the future. As educational institutions cease to be safe spaces and become targets of violence the entire society is directly affected and fear becomes an ordinary part of daily life.

Social violence in the United States has long moved beyond everyday life into the political arena. Politics in the U.S. is increasingly shaped not by speeches but by weapons. In the first half of 2025 nearly 150 politically motivated attacks occurred—a near doubling compared to the previous year. For example in June 2025 Minnesota State House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed in their home. The attacker’s list included approximately 70 names of Democratic Party members. Similarly a recent arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s residence was clearly a challenge to the political sphere.

Looking back a few years reveals how political violence has spread in American society. In 2017 an attacker opened fire on Republican members of Congress playing baseball. In 2021 Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol building in an assault widely regarded as one of the most direct attacks on the heart of American democracy. The increasing tendency of American society to express political anger and demands through violence became most visibly apparent in these events.

The most striking link in this spiral of violence is the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. During a public speech the attack revealed that violence in American politics had reached a symbolic dimension. This attempt exposed both the depth of political polarization in America and a serious vulnerability in the sustainability of American democracy itself.

The Charlie Kirk assassination attempt became the most recent reflection of the wave of political violence in America. During an event at Utah Valley University attended by thousands Kirk was targeted while on stage. Kirk a key figure in Trump’s strategy to mobilize young voters and known for his direct connection with youth was killed. His assassination has become a historic marker showing that figures prominent in the political arena for their ideas and rhetoric are increasingly being drawn into the realm of violence.

On the other hand this atmosphere of violence has also affected other political figures. Hasan Piker known by his online alias “HasanAbi” for his anti-Trump commentary announced after the Charlie Kirk attack that he had received numerous threats and would temporarily reduce his participation in public events. This situation reveals that public figures across the political spectrum in the United States now feel directly threatened.

In conclusion political violence in America has become an inseparable part of the political climate. The fact that figures from opposing camps are caught in the same spiral of threats shows that violence has enveloped the culture of political debate. Politics is increasingly shaped in the shadow of a language of violence that surrounds security concerns sharpens polarization and narrows the democratic space. If this trend is not brought under control it is clearly evident that in the coming years the United States may face even larger security crises and even the possibility of social polarization escalating into internal conflict.