29 ms·

Saudi Money Fuels the Tech Industry. It’s Time to Ask Why

286 points by buttcoinslol 9y ago

startupdiscuss 9y ago
Doesn't it matter which Saudi's money it is? I mean shouldn't a distinction be made between the government, the zealots, private investors, citizens and so on?
- rtpg 9y ago
  >The money from regimes that have been criticized for their human rights records — from Saudi Arabia’s government in particular, which has plans to funnel potentially hundreds of billions of dollars into tech companies through its state-controlled Public Investment Fund Lots of sovereign wealth fund cash, also people within the monarchy with money to throw around.
  - rorykoehler 9y ago
    >The money from regimes that have been criticized for their human rights records TBF the US well and truly falls into that category too.
    - rtpg 9y ago
      classic whatabout-ism that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and more importantly doesn't matter. "America is also bad!" would not be a defense to selling chemical weapons to Hussein. It's not a defense to helping build the Great Firewall. Your actions' consequences are your fault.
      - rorykoehler 9y ago
        It's not whatabout-ism. The question was why is Saudi money accepted. Human-rights violations is totally irrelevant. If it were a leading concern then companies couldn't accept American money either. SpaceX basically couldn't exist. Humans rights is about political power nothing else. Saudis are already dancing to the USA's tune so the US doesn't roll out the human rights and democracy trope. Instead they trade.
        mseebach 9y ago
        Yes it's whataboutism. Human rights violations aren't binary and the Saudi variety is in a different class entirely from the US.
        rorykoehler 9y ago
        >different class entirely from the US Could you elaborate how you came to this conclusion?
      - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
        that awkward moment when you realize whataboutism has been a valid argument for a half century
      - wz1000 9y ago
        > "America is also bad!" would not be a defense to selling chemical weapons to Hussein. Ah, but America has also done this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Iran-Iraq_War_and_resumption_of_diplomatic_ties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93United_States_rel...
Apocryphon 9y ago
If the CIA, Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia all fund startups, would the conflicting interests then cancel each other out?
- Alex3917 9y ago
  Yes, and this is largely the point. The reason foreign governments invest in U.S. tech is because they see it as a path to good relations with the U.S. government. Or at least good enough to avoid getting bombed and having their assets frozen. It's not about making money, it's about reducing geopolitical risk. If these countries wanted to make money then they'd just sell weapons, traffic drugs, build stuff with slave labor, etc., all of which are a lot more profitable than workplace smoothie delivery or whatever.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    That isnt the main reason. They do it to make money, or at least protect the money they have without overheating their own economy. The Chinese don’t buy treasuries to make friendly with the USA, they do it because they don’t have any better options to deal with their trade surpluses. There is just nowhere else liquid enough to park a few hundred billion as needed. Why they fund startups is even more self interested, they really do want to make money, and believe it or not, it is much easier and profitable to do that through investing then to become a rogue state.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- geofft 9y ago
  Their interests aren't conflicting - their interests are making sure that the entrenched powerful class in those four countries continues to be the entrenched powerful class. Surveillance technology, weakened protections for labor (cf. paulg's factually-correct comment about how any industry that still has unions is ripe for disruption), a dependency on access to capital, etc. are in all of these countries' interest. It's like the European monarchies of a couple hundred years back: even if the countries fought wars against each other for territorial squabbles or whatever, their deeper interest was in maintaining the system, and on that they were all allied. So they married each other, met in the Congress of Vienna, etc., because they knew that in supporting each other and the current balance of power, they themselves would be much more likely to keep power.
ryanx435 9y ago
They bought Twitter specifically because of twiiters role in the Arab spring so they could prevent the revolutionary fever spread to Saudi Arabia. It worked.
- yters 9y ago
  This is a more interesting angle than merely looking for ROI. The power of social media to bring about unrest is definitely an incentive for regimes to control said social media. OTOH, we are now getting decentralized social media such as Mastodon.
megaman22 9y ago
The tech industry has, historically and in aggregate, had pretty solid rates of returns. If I was sitting on a dwindling store of natural resources as my primary store of wealth, I would probably want to try to diversify that wealth into other areas and grow that wealth aggressively while my potentially limited income source is still highly profitable. I'm not sure that more nefarious aims need to be posited than simple avarice.
- diogenescynic 9y ago
  Even if it isn’t nefarious, maybe we still shouldn’t let them profit off our liberal democracy while they exploit their own citizens, enslave foreigners, fund terrorism, and abuse women. Maybe we shouldn’t let them have their cake and eat it too. Make them pick between human rights and investing in the S&P500.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    ...How? How do you get a diverse and often quarrelsome world to agree on something that huge?
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      You apply pressure on companies taking investment from the Saudis collectively. If you can’t support Uber because of an atmosphere of sexually harassment, how can you support them when their investment dollars are coming from a country that subjugates women? That creates an indentured servant class from imported labor? That sort of argument. It’s blood money, and that’s the narrative you use (if one was so inclined). Failing that, you’ll have to resort to politics.
      - QAPereo 9y ago
        You apply pressure on companies taking investment from the Saudis collectively. That's just rephrasing it... how do you apply pressure? Everyone needs oil, many don't care about these issues, so how do we make them toe a line? What pressure do we exert? How much political capital do we burn without a hope of return? At the end of the day though, you say "blood money" as though both sides aren't drenched in it. Moreover, whoever the Saudis are killing, it's with our weapons systems. They're newcomers to a game that the US has been playing for centuries, and Europe much longer. They're something between our rogue asset in the region, and our abusive soon-to-be-ex-spouse. Everyone sees it coming, especially the Saudis who are going so far as to clean house and contemplate an Aramco IPO to avoid being reclaimed by the desert.
diogenescynic 9y ago
Same reason they invest in Fox News—aim the weapon at your enemy, like Iran. It’s no coincidence the media is always screaming about Iran, who is actually more moderate than our supposed ally Saudi Arabia. It’s a way to buy themselves a free pass from criticism.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  Iran may be moderate, but they are also aligned with Russia. I'd like Iran to align with the West, but too many sides are in their trenches.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "Iran may be moderate, but they are also aligned with Russia." Why is that a problem? The Cold War is over. The Russian influence on the world stage is not what it once was (China has definitely superseded it), and it's a capitalist society so their interests are mostly aligned with capitalist societies elsewhere.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      > [Russia is] a capitalist society so their interests are mostly aligned with capitalist societies elsewhere. Clearly their interests are not aligned with most capitalist societies, including the ones in Europe, East Asia, and the U.S. Russia overtly calls these nations their enemies, those nations see Russia as a threat, and Russia regularly threatens them militarily and interferes in their domestic politics at an extreme level (short of war).
      - ZenoArrow 9y ago
        Which countries in East Asia are you referring to? As for the EU, the 'enemy' status is over a battle for control of Ukraine, and the trade sanctions that happened as a result of Russian invading Ukraine to stop Ukraine becoming a member of the EU. More detail about trade sanctions: https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/eu-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine-crisis_en https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/eu-sa... The US has also imposed trade sanctions for similar reasons: https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/ukrainerussia/ https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/ukrainerussia/ In my opinion Russia is in the wrong here, I'm just pointing out the reason behind that 'enemy' status. In countries that conduct business with Russia, that enemy status is far less pronounced.
mabbo 9y ago
Because it's a good investment, and Saudi Arabia is desperate to diversify their money before all the oil dries up. Why is this complicated?
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  The question is not why would the Saudis want to invest, it's why an industry that always talks about how progressive and innovative it is is so happy to compromise those values. This presents a conundrum. Tech companies are fond of pseudo-revolutionary mission statements that extol the virtues of diversity, tolerance, freedom of expression and other progressive ideals. They have argued that their technologies are part of a force for global liberation — that forging more open communication and economic productivity through technology will loosen the grip of tyrannies across the globe. For much of the last year, Silicon Valley has also promised a revolution in its own culture, with large and small companies alike vowing to become more inclusive of women and minorities. To outsiders it looks fake, hypocritical, and a little immoral. $300 million is nice, but why sell your soul for it?
  - chii 9y ago
    > an industry that always talks talk is cheap. Action speaks louder than any words. Any company that doesn't action on issues they claim they care about doesn't really care about it.
  - virmundi 9y ago
    I think the answer is that Silicon Valley is all those things. They are caught up in a moral panic. Look at their history: pro women's right's publically, but sexist privately; anti-school choice for the average person, but sends their kids to private school ; reject new water pipeline for farmers because piped water over long distance is unnatural; keeps existing water rights to their cities. Silicon Valley is not and probably never has been virtuous ; it has often virtue signaled.
  - erikb 9y ago
    > $300 million is nice, but why sell your soul for it? This is what "taking money" means. You don't need to be more specific about the investor. You cannot take any money if you are not willing to give your soul in exchange. Even a $30k/year paycheck requires that in many regards.
omarforgotpwd 9y ago
I think you could argue that it is actually inhumane to deny certain people the right to investment gains from american companies. Sure you may not like the Saudi Arabian government but ultimately they are trying to create a plan to secure the future of real people who are not all evil, though it may look that way from our cultural vantage point. The Saudis haven’t tended to try and influence their investments, they are mostly a silent investor so far. So if they are not doing anything evil and providing additional liquidity and demand to American capital markets, why go after them or the tech companies that sell them shares?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > ultimately they are trying to create a plan to secure the future of real people I think you have a point in general, but let's not take the proclamations at face value. > The Saudis haven’t tended to try and influence their investments, they are mostly a silent investor so far Do we know this somehow? Beyond a doubt, if they have power they will use it.
  - omarforgotpwd 9y ago
    > Do we know this somehow? Beyond a doubt, if they have power they will use it. I remember reading this somewhere, but I can't find a source. It is conceivable they may choose to be more "activist" with their holdings in the future, but thus far I can't think of any examples of them using their holdings to exert influence over the company's they invested in. Certainly they must be cognizant of the fact that doing so at this time would make most companies reluctant to accept their investment.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      > I can't think of any examples of them using their holdings to exert influence over the company's they invested in How would you know? Such things are rarely disclosed; both parties prefer to keep them confidential. > they must be cognizant of the fact that doing so at this time would make most companies reluctant to accept their investment Many companies make deals like that all the time. Look at the influence of China in Hollywood: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15641483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15641483
bitL 9y ago
Saudis are smart to invest in tech when future of oil is questionable. That's despite the game of thrones "fun" going on there right now. And tech despite its "progressive" PR doesn't care about source of money anyway; purity is for tech plebs, not for rulers.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  despite the game of thrones "fun" going on there right now That's simultaneously a reference to George R. R. Martin and Toys for Bob!
CalChris 9y ago
Why seems pretty obvious. Instead of asking why, it would be better to ask how. I don't know of any Saudi VC firms on Sand Hill Road. But then there's a ton of Saudi money out there. Softbank just opened a Saudi fund with $93B. http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/21/technology/saudi-softbank-tech-fund-target/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/21/technology/saudi-softbank-te... KSA investors seem to be acting as extremely large limited partners which makes a lot of investment sense for them. Dunno if CFIUS can look at this but isn't that what they're there for?
brighteyes 9y ago
There is something to this argument, but it's ruined. The author and many others don't like Saudi Arabia and Russia. That's the main reason for advocating a boycott of their investment money, because while the author mentions the poor human rights records of those two countries as the reason, there are plenty of other countries with such records. The main example of which is China, which is of course not mentioned. The US itself has a poor human rights record on many things, and especially given our current president, had the author been writing from any other country, the US might have been on the list of countries whose money should not be accepted. I'm not saying the US is as bad as China and Russia and Saudi Arabia. I'm not even saying China is as bad as Russia and Saudi Arabia. I am saying that if you care deeply about this, you should mention more than the easiest targets, if only to avoid the appearance of bias. The bias also shows itself by considering an entire country as a single entity, when the author says we should not accept Russian investors' money. To justify it, the author says that if a Russian investor has ties to Kremlin-backed companies, they should be off limits. But that probably encompasses a large number of Russian investors. Same as the group of investors with ties to companies funded by US government money (DARPA, NSA, CIA, etc.).
- psergeant 9y ago
  > you should mention more than > the easiest targets, if only > to avoid the appearance of > bias You’re arguing for purity over pragmatism
  - supercanuck 9y ago
    ...also whataboutism.
  - Gigablah 9y ago
    For a moment I thought you were describing the article itself.
- sho 9y ago
  I kind of agree with you, but I think you muddy your argument by getting into the weeds somewhat. For me this whole thing is pretty simple - where do you draw your line? I mean, off the top of my head here's a rough list, in my extremely rough estimation, of human rights offenders from bad to good: badness country 100% DPRK 90% Saudi Arabia 80% Dubai 70% Russia 60% China 50% USA 40% India 30% Japan 20% Australia 10% Norway 0% Antarctica So where do you draw your line? Stating "My line is 65% bad or less" is a reasonable argument.
thisisit 9y ago
Companies, except Twitter and Kingdom Holdings, take money from Softbank's Vision Fund. This fund incidentally has a lot of backing from the Saudis. Softank is a famous name in the VC and tech circle. So, I am wondering how many tech startups do a reverse due diligence on the companies offering them money? Is that a normal expected practice?
ProfessorLayton 9y ago
Similar questions can be asked about our 401Ks/pensions. Our retirements partially ride on the backs of companies that have done no-so-great things to society.
- psergeant 9y ago
  Plenty of “green” and “social” funds if you’re worried about that, and I note that sovereign wealth funds and public sector pension funds do indeed concern themselves with questions like this
ganish786 9y ago
hi
umeshunni 9y ago
Saudi Oil Fuels the NYT's vehicle. It's time to Ask Why?
- quickthrower2 9y ago
  Why it's Saudi? Or why it's oil?
- zjaffee 9y ago
  One of the NYTimes largest investor is carlos slim who made his money in not the most ethical ways.
- cholantesh 9y ago
  Textbook whataboutism. I'm not sure I agree with OP, but this is not a response.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
baliansa 9y ago
Maybe because the crown prince is a 32 year old who grew up seeing bill gates as an idol? Maybe this is because they want to move away from oil by exiting Aramco and moving their money to VCs?
gozur88 9y ago
This article is really, really light on reasons why you wouldn't take Saudi money. Is he really suggesting we reject money from a citizen of any country that's been "criticized for its human rights record"? Would there be any money left?
- erikb 9y ago
  If you did that, you couldn't take US money either. Especially now that we've seen Trump and his friends, does anybody really consider them better than any other powerhungry folks?
  - malaipriya 9y ago
    trump and hilary are making their way to become a president of america
  - PeachPlum 9y ago
    Can you show me the list of President Trump's human rights abuses ?
    - erikb 9y ago
      E.g. depends on whether you consider simply grabbing women by the pussy as a human rights abuse.
      - gozur88 9y ago
        ... when she's okay with it.
    - jernfrost 9y ago
      Fortunatly for the US there are checks and balances hindering Trump from doing most of the evil he wants to. Don’t be naive and think he would be nice if he had dictatorial powers. He has already publicly complained that he can’t use the FBI for whatever he wants to, like going after his political opponents.
nitwit005 9y ago
If you're going to call out something in particular, you'd think it'd be the weapons deals instead of investments in Twitter, Uber and so on. Feels like this might have been slanted this way just so they'd have something to put in the "Technology" category on the website.
kregasaurusrex 9y ago
It's worth noting that the larger companies mentioned like Uber, Slack, and Twitter which received money from the Vision Fund occurred in their later respective funding rounds, often shortly before going into an IPO or full-on acquisition by a publicly traded company. My guess would be that this fund is targeting modest returns while not wanting to incur the both the risk associated with a company in its earlier funding rounds, and a guaranteed path towards liquidity if the fund managers desire to exit. I see this purely as an investment vehicle since investments at these stages aren't expected to provide the investors with significant numbers of voting shares.
macspoofing 9y ago
Because Saudis have a ton of oil-money that they want/need to park somewhere?
erikb 9y ago
Honestly, if someone offers you 300 million plus would you say no, because this someone belongs to a different culture group? The discussion as well as the headline of the article seems quite strange. I mean you want a free market or not. If you want, then all these examples should make you proud not worried.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  So, not respecting human rights is a cultural difference we should accept? And if I want free markets, and I notice that free markets lead to people being murdered, then I should be proud when people do get murdered? Otherwise I would necessarily have to reject free markets? Or what exactly is your point?
  - erikb 9y ago
    No what is your point. (a) Why does paying $300mio to Twitter results in people getting killed? (b) Why do you think your government/companies/people would do better? (c) What you should be proud of if you like free markets is that everybody with money and interest in a company can put their money in that company. In a non-free market like China you are way more limited with foreign investments. (d) "Free" means everybody can do what they want. If you want to limit what people are doing you are not talking free markets. That's in fact a reasonable argument from the Socialist spectrum. Don't allow people to run around freely, harming themselves and each other. One really has to decide what one likes in that spectrum. Each direction has their own pros and cons.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > (a) Why does paying $300mio to Twitter results in people getting killed? Who claimed it did? > (b) Why do you think your government/companies/people would do better? What makes you think I think that? > (c) What you should be proud of if you like free markets is that everybody with money and interest in a company can put their money in that company. In a non-free market like China you are way more limited with foreign investments. Why should I like free markets as a primary value? > (d) "Free" means everybody can do what they want. If you want to limit what people are doing you are not talking free markets. That's in fact a reasonable argument from the Socialist spectrum. Don't allow people to run around freely, harming themselves and each other. One really has to decide what one likes in that spectrum. Each direction has their own pros and cons. If you want to limit my ability to erect a government that limits what you can do, then we are not talking freedom. Agree?
otempomores 9y ago
TL,DidRead: Not prophets of progress but prison wardens.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
Saudi Oil Fuels Our cars and Industry. It’s Time to Ask Why. At least we're getting some of the money back in investment. But yeah, a major investor, especially in hard times can have clout and can influence a lot of things. With one suggestion...
R_haterade 9y ago
Why this story, and why right now? Think!
sadlyNess 9y ago
Is it fair/unfair to chalk this down to plain objectivism? That the source of money isnt that important as long as it gives me a chance to Change The World™..?
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  You're right, it doesn't matter. Thirty years ago it didn't matter, there was no such thing as criminalizing the source of money before then. This is a fake stigma, you don't have to rationalize it either. Unparalleled economic growth continued to happen because it didn't matter to anyone of importance and status. Whatever fake stigmas were shoved down the throats of the morally subscribed underclass only serve to keep them squabbling and maintaining the social and economic order which has always been here.
denisehilton 9y ago
They are still trying to destroy their economy by imposing meaningless taxes for expats. Their strategy is going to fail.
richardknop 9y ago
This article is quite hypocritical. If you are going to single out Saudi money as immoral or let's say unethical, you have to apply the same meter to all countries. And this isn't just Russia which is currently being sanctioned hard but also notably China or some other ME and African countries. Now, if you want to know my personal opinion, I am very critical of Saudi Arabia and if Russia and Iran are treated as enemies and sanctioned I think the treatment of SA should be the same.
tek-cyb-org 9y ago
Israel, the racist state, also fuels the tech industry. I don't hear any complaints from the new york times?
- skrebbel 9y ago
  Note, you're getting downvoted not because of your actual point, but because of the needlessly inflammatory "Israel, the racist state".
- sctb 9y ago
  Please don't violate the guidelines like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
KKKKkkkk1 9y ago
I would expect an article with that kind of title to be published in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times, not the technology section. I'm wondering whether this might be motivated by the Times's financial interests.
karmapolic 9y ago
its makes me wonder if media is responsible for the hypocrisy in most of us?
Santosh83 9y ago
Saudi oil fuels most of the world for that matter. Maybe we should all be asking ourselves questions about how we live?
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
So taking money from a government is now "losing your moral compass" OKAY. Yes, keep trying to tell us what to think that worked out SOOOO well last year.
prestonpesek 9y ago
Maybe we should ask how human rights abuses plan to persist if their proponents are funding new platforms of self expression and better flows of information that offer tremendous empowerment for the average person to learn about and speak out against such injustices. This seems a poor strategy if the goal is to keep the people ignorant and subject to the ancient stupidity of religious dogma.
- Mediterraneo10 9y ago
  I daresay you are a few years behind. Social networking hasn’t proven to be quite the platform for self-expression and resistance to oppression that it may have seemed a decade ago. A number of authoritarian states now have deep social network penetration, but they have managed to neuter political criticism. Requiring that one use one's real name and identifiable details (like a mobile phone number; in many countries you have to show your ID to buy a SIM card) helps ensure an atmosphere of self-censorship, where people don’t air strident views too much because they worry about the consequences. > the goal is to keep the people ignorant and subject to the ancient stupidity of religious dogma The present wave of fundamentalist Orthodoxy in Russia (demanding a ban on screenings of the film Mathilda, attacking other arts figures or those who would try to shield property from Church repossession, etc.) is actually mobilized in large part through social-networking platforms.
StanislavPetrov 9y ago
No, its time to stop pretending that the "tech industry" is some sort of champion of freedom and goodness. There is nothing inherently good about tech or the tech industry. Governed properly, platforms and services like Twitter and Google can be valuable tools in creating and sustaining a free and open society. Nothing about their behavior suggests this is the case. Virtually every tech company has crumbled without much hesitation when put under pressure from authoritarian governments from China to the United States. Not only are these tech platforms quick to acquiesce to the requests(and threats) from governments, but they have proven just as willing to engage in shady and subversive practices to support their business model (and those of their advertisers and clients).
- forapurpose 9y ago
  More concretely, the tech industry does good if and only if people reading this (and others like them) do good, including by advocating for good to their peers, employers, etc. There is nothing inherently good about the industry, or about you and me. How to do it is complicated. If people like the Saudis offer money, consider the consequences. Consider your power to say 'no' to the influence they may wish to wield and how much you are legitimizing them by association. As an example, Chinese censors now influence Hollywood. The Chinese government threatens to deny their market to those who don't cooperate, and so Americans and the world see films that are effectively censored, to a degree, by the Chinese government. For example, in the 1990s Disney made the film Kundun, about the Dalai Lama. China penalized Disney heavily in the domestic market. In October 1998, [Disney head Michael] Mr. Eisner met Zhu Rongji, who had just been named prime minister, at China’s leadership compound in Beijing. Mr. Eisner apologized for “Kundun,” calling it a “stupid mistake,” according to a transcript of the meeting. “This film was a form of insult to our friends, but other than journalists, very few people in the world ever saw it,” Mr. Eisner said during the meeting. (“Kundun” bombed, taking in just $5.7 million against a production budget of about $30 million.) Mr. Eisner said the company had learned a lesson. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/business/international/china-disney.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/business/international/ch... Seen many films critical of China lately?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
odiroot 9y ago
Why now, New York Times? Just after Saudis started to clean their house. What's your point? This article cannot be accidental.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  For what it's worth, I don't trust the process of corrupt organizations "cleaning house" in general. The housecleaning could easily be of people with insufficient loyalty.
- gtirloni 9y ago
  Because that's how news works. There are more incentives (i.e. more eyeballs) to talk about the latest news and people who are in power today. If Congo becomes a global investiment power in the future, you'll hear more about Congo. Of course we should all be wary of market manipulations by people with easy access to lots of eyeballs but this article is too widespread to have any direct impact on the market or a specific company.
- molmalo 9y ago
  My best guess, is that Saudi Arabia has been pushing very hard against Qatar lately, who has enormous amounts of capital and influence in media through it's advertisement contracts (via lots of companies and holdings directly or virtually controlled by them)... Another option, the recent detention of Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal (same reason, money and influence over media).
severian1778 9y ago
because americans are too cheap to invest?
nautilus12 9y ago
Aside from simply diversifying their portfolio are there any prominant deep state theories as to why Saudi Arabia would want to prop up tech? For example, one such theory could be that Apple is being funded by Saudi Arabia to specifically build addictive technologies so the American public is enmeshed in confusing contradictory media sources rendering the US public largely ineffective and allowing them a secret backdoor to collect data on the American public.
- bcraven 9y ago
  What a hilariously convoluted plan! Here's an easier one- oil is running out so the Kingdom needs to diversify. Tech provides investment and job opportunities.
  - nautilus12 9y ago
    This was just an example
NumberCruncher 9y ago
Because money does not stink.
mastazi 9y ago
> By accepting these investments, tech companies get to revel in the branding glory of global good while taking billions from a government that stands against many of those goals It seems to me that all (or at least almost all) of the companies cited in the article are now (as of Nov 2017) public companies, how are they supposed to not accept investments? On the one hand I understand the criticism because many of those investments came before those companies went public (e.g. the one, cited in the article, that Twitter took in 2011) but what would be the proposed action now? The article seemed to me a bit simplistic.
abalashov 9y ago
The developed world already transfers gargantuan sums of wealth to the Saudis for energy supplies, and has done so for many decades. What exactly is the moral distinction here? From a 50,000 ft view, it seems that the social bargain we have with the Saudis is what it is, and the particular modes of capital flow aren't the critical issue. If nothing else, massive inputs of fossil fuels are required to sustain the Valley tech economy, too, in all kinds of direct and indirect ways. Tech has been helping make the oil autocracies rich since forever.
aptidude187 9y ago
Talking about human rights violations but not even mentioning Israel? This is really some agenda driven piece, don‘t insult the reader‘s intelligence.
- jernfrost 9y ago
  I disagree. The human rights abuses of Israel are if anything over reported. How often do you e.g. hear about Israeli abuses vs Sri Lanken, Indonesian etc? No country had gotten as many UN resolutions or attempts of it against itself despite in the grand scheme of things they don’t make the top 10. Typically these resolutions are filed by arab countries with far worse humanitarian record.
zabana 9y ago
Well, Saudi money comes from oil revenue, which is measured in US dollars. So really Saudi Arabia is just putting that money back into your pockets, so why all the hate ? (And please if you could step down from your high arrogant western horse for one moment and avoid the old "yeah but women can't drive" rhetoric, that would be much appreciated).
arkh 9y ago
The NY Times has a beef against the tech industry. It's time to ask why.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
prestonpesek 9y ago
If humanity wants to improve the net balance of human rights, what better way than to reallocate available financial capital away from regimes that subscribe to undesirable religious dogma, and toward a new generation of leaders who believe in progress through the erosion of ignorance, by creating platforms of empowerment and enlightenment by means of a freer flow of information, via digital channels that transcend obsolete political and cultural borders. If the Saudi agenda is to propagate Islam, then the internet is a terrible thing to invest in.
lend000 9y ago
Sensational pseudo-journalism making an issue out of nothing. There will rarely be a company that has the luxury to turn down funding on some misplaced moral high ground. Should we enact an embargo? Sanctions always work, right? Or at least they make the poorest inhabitants of the country suffer (see NK, Cuba, Yemen).
ne08 9y ago
I'm Saudi, and I can confirm this is a bullshit, this crown prince only wants to steal more money. He is an idiot his mind is empty don't fall for these propaganda.
nextstep 9y ago
Israel is much more closely tied to the US tech industry and is also a flagrant abuser of human rights yet this article ignores this obvious comparison?

286 points by buttcoinslol 9y ago

Doesn't it matter which Saudi's money it is? I mean shouldn't a distinction be made between the government, the zealots, private investors, citizens and so on?

rtpg 9y ago
>The money from regimes that have been criticized for their human rights records — from Saudi Arabia’s government in particular, which has plans to funnel potentially hundreds of billions of dollars into tech companies through its state-controlled Public Investment Fund Lots of sovereign wealth fund cash, also people within the monarchy with money to throw around.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  >The money from regimes that have been criticized for their human rights records TBF the US well and truly falls into that category too.
  - rtpg 9y ago
    classic whatabout-ism that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and more importantly doesn't matter. "America is also bad!" would not be a defense to selling chemical weapons to Hussein. It's not a defense to helping build the Great Firewall. Your actions' consequences are your fault.
    - rorykoehler 9y ago
      It's not whatabout-ism. The question was why is Saudi money accepted. Human-rights violations is totally irrelevant. If it were a leading concern then companies couldn't accept American money either. SpaceX basically couldn't exist. Humans rights is about political power nothing else. Saudis are already dancing to the USA's tune so the US doesn't roll out the human rights and democracy trope. Instead they trade.
      - mseebach 9y ago
        Yes it's whataboutism. Human rights violations aren't binary and the Saudi variety is in a different class entirely from the US.
        rorykoehler 9y ago
        >different class entirely from the US Could you elaborate how you came to this conclusion?
    - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
      that awkward moment when you realize whataboutism has been a valid argument for a half century
    - wz1000 9y ago
      > "America is also bad!" would not be a defense to selling chemical weapons to Hussein. Ah, but America has also done this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Iran-Iraq_War_and_resumption_of_diplomatic_ties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93United_States_rel...

Apocryphon 9y ago

If the CIA, Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia all fund startups, would the conflicting interests then cancel each other out?

Alex3917 9y ago
Yes, and this is largely the point. The reason foreign governments invest in U.S. tech is because they see it as a path to good relations with the U.S. government. Or at least good enough to avoid getting bombed and having their assets frozen. It's not about making money, it's about reducing geopolitical risk. If these countries wanted to make money then they'd just sell weapons, traffic drugs, build stuff with slave labor, etc., all of which are a lot more profitable than workplace smoothie delivery or whatever.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  That isnt the main reason. They do it to make money, or at least protect the money they have without overheating their own economy. The Chinese don’t buy treasuries to make friendly with the USA, they do it because they don’t have any better options to deal with their trade surpluses. There is just nowhere else liquid enough to park a few hundred billion as needed. Why they fund startups is even more self interested, they really do want to make money, and believe it or not, it is much easier and profitable to do that through investing then to become a rogue state.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
geofft 9y ago
Their interests aren't conflicting - their interests are making sure that the entrenched powerful class in those four countries continues to be the entrenched powerful class. Surveillance technology, weakened protections for labor (cf. paulg's factually-correct comment about how any industry that still has unions is ripe for disruption), a dependency on access to capital, etc. are in all of these countries' interest. It's like the European monarchies of a couple hundred years back: even if the countries fought wars against each other for territorial squabbles or whatever, their deeper interest was in maintaining the system, and on that they were all allied. So they married each other, met in the Congress of Vienna, etc., because they knew that in supporting each other and the current balance of power, they themselves would be much more likely to keep power.

ryanx435 9y ago

They bought Twitter specifically because of twiiters role in the Arab spring so they could prevent the revolutionary fever spread to Saudi Arabia. It worked.

yters 9y ago
This is a more interesting angle than merely looking for ROI. The power of social media to bring about unrest is definitely an incentive for regimes to control said social media. OTOH, we are now getting decentralized social media such as Mastodon.

megaman22 9y ago

The tech industry has, historically and in aggregate, had pretty solid rates of returns. If I was sitting on a dwindling store of natural resources as my primary store of wealth, I would probably want to try to diversify that wealth into other areas and grow that wealth aggressively while my potentially limited income source is still highly profitable. I'm not sure that more nefarious aims need to be posited than simple avarice.

diogenescynic 9y ago
Even if it isn’t nefarious, maybe we still shouldn’t let them profit off our liberal democracy while they exploit their own citizens, enslave foreigners, fund terrorism, and abuse women. Maybe we shouldn’t let them have their cake and eat it too. Make them pick between human rights and investing in the S&P500.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  ...How? How do you get a diverse and often quarrelsome world to agree on something that huge?
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    You apply pressure on companies taking investment from the Saudis collectively. If you can’t support Uber because of an atmosphere of sexually harassment, how can you support them when their investment dollars are coming from a country that subjugates women? That creates an indentured servant class from imported labor? That sort of argument. It’s blood money, and that’s the narrative you use (if one was so inclined). Failing that, you’ll have to resort to politics.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      You apply pressure on companies taking investment from the Saudis collectively. That's just rephrasing it... how do you apply pressure? Everyone needs oil, many don't care about these issues, so how do we make them toe a line? What pressure do we exert? How much political capital do we burn without a hope of return? At the end of the day though, you say "blood money" as though both sides aren't drenched in it. Moreover, whoever the Saudis are killing, it's with our weapons systems. They're newcomers to a game that the US has been playing for centuries, and Europe much longer. They're something between our rogue asset in the region, and our abusive soon-to-be-ex-spouse. Everyone sees it coming, especially the Saudis who are going so far as to clean house and contemplate an Aramco IPO to avoid being reclaimed by the desert.

diogenescynic 9y ago

Same reason they invest in Fox News—aim the weapon at your enemy, like Iran. It’s no coincidence the media is always screaming about Iran, who is actually more moderate than our supposed ally Saudi Arabia. It’s a way to buy themselves a free pass from criticism.

SubiculumCode 9y ago
Iran may be moderate, but they are also aligned with Russia. I'd like Iran to align with the West, but too many sides are in their trenches.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "Iran may be moderate, but they are also aligned with Russia." Why is that a problem? The Cold War is over. The Russian influence on the world stage is not what it once was (China has definitely superseded it), and it's a capitalist society so their interests are mostly aligned with capitalist societies elsewhere.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > [Russia is] a capitalist society so their interests are mostly aligned with capitalist societies elsewhere. Clearly their interests are not aligned with most capitalist societies, including the ones in Europe, East Asia, and the U.S. Russia overtly calls these nations their enemies, those nations see Russia as a threat, and Russia regularly threatens them militarily and interferes in their domestic politics at an extreme level (short of war).
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      Which countries in East Asia are you referring to? As for the EU, the 'enemy' status is over a battle for control of Ukraine, and the trade sanctions that happened as a result of Russian invading Ukraine to stop Ukraine becoming a member of the EU. More detail about trade sanctions: https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/eu-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine-crisis_en https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/eu-sa... The US has also imposed trade sanctions for similar reasons: https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/ukrainerussia/ https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/ukrainerussia/ In my opinion Russia is in the wrong here, I'm just pointing out the reason behind that 'enemy' status. In countries that conduct business with Russia, that enemy status is far less pronounced.

mabbo 9y ago

Because it's a good investment, and Saudi Arabia is desperate to diversify their money before all the oil dries up. Why is this complicated?

aaron-lebo 9y ago
The question is not why would the Saudis want to invest, it's why an industry that always talks about how progressive and innovative it is is so happy to compromise those values. This presents a conundrum. Tech companies are fond of pseudo-revolutionary mission statements that extol the virtues of diversity, tolerance, freedom of expression and other progressive ideals. They have argued that their technologies are part of a force for global liberation — that forging more open communication and economic productivity through technology will loosen the grip of tyrannies across the globe. For much of the last year, Silicon Valley has also promised a revolution in its own culture, with large and small companies alike vowing to become more inclusive of women and minorities. To outsiders it looks fake, hypocritical, and a little immoral. $300 million is nice, but why sell your soul for it?
- chii 9y ago
  > an industry that always talks talk is cheap. Action speaks louder than any words. Any company that doesn't action on issues they claim they care about doesn't really care about it.
- virmundi 9y ago
  I think the answer is that Silicon Valley is all those things. They are caught up in a moral panic. Look at their history: pro women's right's publically, but sexist privately; anti-school choice for the average person, but sends their kids to private school ; reject new water pipeline for farmers because piped water over long distance is unnatural; keeps existing water rights to their cities. Silicon Valley is not and probably never has been virtuous ; it has often virtue signaled.
- erikb 9y ago
  > $300 million is nice, but why sell your soul for it? This is what "taking money" means. You don't need to be more specific about the investor. You cannot take any money if you are not willing to give your soul in exchange. Even a $30k/year paycheck requires that in many regards.

omarforgotpwd 9y ago

I think you could argue that it is actually inhumane to deny certain people the right to investment gains from american companies. Sure you may not like the Saudi Arabian government but ultimately they are trying to create a plan to secure the future of real people who are not all evil, though it may look that way from our cultural vantage point. The Saudis haven’t tended to try and influence their investments, they are mostly a silent investor so far. So if they are not doing anything evil and providing additional liquidity and demand to American capital markets, why go after them or the tech companies that sell them shares?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
forapurpose 9y ago
> ultimately they are trying to create a plan to secure the future of real people I think you have a point in general, but let's not take the proclamations at face value. > The Saudis haven’t tended to try and influence their investments, they are mostly a silent investor so far Do we know this somehow? Beyond a doubt, if they have power they will use it.
- omarforgotpwd 9y ago
  > Do we know this somehow? Beyond a doubt, if they have power they will use it. I remember reading this somewhere, but I can't find a source. It is conceivable they may choose to be more "activist" with their holdings in the future, but thus far I can't think of any examples of them using their holdings to exert influence over the company's they invested in. Certainly they must be cognizant of the fact that doing so at this time would make most companies reluctant to accept their investment.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > I can't think of any examples of them using their holdings to exert influence over the company's they invested in How would you know? Such things are rarely disclosed; both parties prefer to keep them confidential. > they must be cognizant of the fact that doing so at this time would make most companies reluctant to accept their investment Many companies make deals like that all the time. Look at the influence of China in Hollywood: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15641483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15641483

bitL 9y ago

Saudis are smart to invest in tech when future of oil is questionable. That's despite the game of thrones "fun" going on there right now. And tech despite its "progressive" PR doesn't care about source of money anyway; purity is for tech plebs, not for rulers.

stcredzero 9y ago
despite the game of thrones "fun" going on there right now That's simultaneously a reference to George R. R. Martin and Toys for Bob!

CalChris 9y ago

Why seems pretty obvious. Instead of asking why, it would be better to ask how. I don't know of any Saudi VC firms on Sand Hill Road. But then there's a ton of Saudi money out there. Softbank just opened a Saudi fund with $93B. http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/21/technology/saudi-softbank-tech-fund-target/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/21/technology/saudi-softbank-te... KSA investors seem to be acting as extremely large limited partners which makes a lot of investment sense for them. Dunno if CFIUS can look at this but isn't that what they're there for?

brighteyes 9y ago

There is something to this argument, but it's ruined. The author and many others don't like Saudi Arabia and Russia. That's the main reason for advocating a boycott of their investment money, because while the author mentions the poor human rights records of those two countries as the reason, there are plenty of other countries with such records. The main example of which is China, which is of course not mentioned. The US itself has a poor human rights record on many things, and especially given our current president, had the author been writing from any other country, the US might have been on the list of countries whose money should not be accepted. I'm not saying the US is as bad as China and Russia and Saudi Arabia. I'm not even saying China is as bad as Russia and Saudi Arabia. I am saying that if you care deeply about this, you should mention more than the easiest targets, if only to avoid the appearance of bias. The bias also shows itself by considering an entire country as a single entity, when the author says we should not accept Russian investors' money. To justify it, the author says that if a Russian investor has ties to Kremlin-backed companies, they should be off limits. But that probably encompasses a large number of Russian investors. Same as the group of investors with ties to companies funded by US government money (DARPA, NSA, CIA, etc.).

psergeant 9y ago
> you should mention more than > the easiest targets, if only > to avoid the appearance of > bias You’re arguing for purity over pragmatism
- supercanuck 9y ago
  ...also whataboutism.
- Gigablah 9y ago
  For a moment I thought you were describing the article itself.
sho 9y ago
I kind of agree with you, but I think you muddy your argument by getting into the weeds somewhat. For me this whole thing is pretty simple - where do you draw your line? I mean, off the top of my head here's a rough list, in my extremely rough estimation, of human rights offenders from bad to good: badness country 100% DPRK 90% Saudi Arabia 80% Dubai 70% Russia 60% China 50% USA 40% India 30% Japan 20% Australia 10% Norway 0% Antarctica So where do you draw your line? Stating "My line is 65% bad or less" is a reasonable argument.

thisisit 9y ago

Companies, except Twitter and Kingdom Holdings, take money from Softbank's Vision Fund. This fund incidentally has a lot of backing from the Saudis. Softank is a famous name in the VC and tech circle. So, I am wondering how many tech startups do a reverse due diligence on the companies offering them money? Is that a normal expected practice?

ProfessorLayton 9y ago

Similar questions can be asked about our 401Ks/pensions. Our retirements partially ride on the backs of companies that have done no-so-great things to society.

psergeant 9y ago
Plenty of “green” and “social” funds if you’re worried about that, and I note that sovereign wealth funds and public sector pension funds do indeed concern themselves with questions like this

ganish786 9y ago

umeshunni 9y ago

Saudi Oil Fuels the NYT's vehicle. It's time to Ask Why?

quickthrower2 9y ago
Why it's Saudi? Or why it's oil?
zjaffee 9y ago
One of the NYTimes largest investor is carlos slim who made his money in not the most ethical ways.
cholantesh 9y ago
Textbook whataboutism. I'm not sure I agree with OP, but this is not a response.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

baliansa 9y ago

Maybe because the crown prince is a 32 year old who grew up seeing bill gates as an idol? Maybe this is because they want to move away from oil by exiting Aramco and moving their money to VCs?

gozur88 9y ago

This article is really, really light on reasons why you wouldn't take Saudi money. Is he really suggesting we reject money from a citizen of any country that's been "criticized for its human rights record"? Would there be any money left?

erikb 9y ago
If you did that, you couldn't take US money either. Especially now that we've seen Trump and his friends, does anybody really consider them better than any other powerhungry folks?
- malaipriya 9y ago
  trump and hilary are making their way to become a president of america
- PeachPlum 9y ago
  Can you show me the list of President Trump's human rights abuses ?
  - erikb 9y ago
    E.g. depends on whether you consider simply grabbing women by the pussy as a human rights abuse.
    - gozur88 9y ago
      ... when she's okay with it.
  - jernfrost 9y ago
    Fortunatly for the US there are checks and balances hindering Trump from doing most of the evil he wants to. Don’t be naive and think he would be nice if he had dictatorial powers. He has already publicly complained that he can’t use the FBI for whatever he wants to, like going after his political opponents.

nitwit005 9y ago

If you're going to call out something in particular, you'd think it'd be the weapons deals instead of investments in Twitter, Uber and so on. Feels like this might have been slanted this way just so they'd have something to put in the "Technology" category on the website.

kregasaurusrex 9y ago

It's worth noting that the larger companies mentioned like Uber, Slack, and Twitter which received money from the Vision Fund occurred in their later respective funding rounds, often shortly before going into an IPO or full-on acquisition by a publicly traded company. My guess would be that this fund is targeting modest returns while not wanting to incur the both the risk associated with a company in its earlier funding rounds, and a guaranteed path towards liquidity if the fund managers desire to exit. I see this purely as an investment vehicle since investments at these stages aren't expected to provide the investors with significant numbers of voting shares.

macspoofing 9y ago

Because Saudis have a ton of oil-money that they want/need to park somewhere?

erikb 9y ago

Honestly, if someone offers you 300 million plus would you say no, because this someone belongs to a different culture group? The discussion as well as the headline of the article seems quite strange. I mean you want a free market or not. If you want, then all these examples should make you proud not worried.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
So, not respecting human rights is a cultural difference we should accept? And if I want free markets, and I notice that free markets lead to people being murdered, then I should be proud when people do get murdered? Otherwise I would necessarily have to reject free markets? Or what exactly is your point?
- erikb 9y ago
  No what is your point. (a) Why does paying $300mio to Twitter results in people getting killed? (b) Why do you think your government/companies/people would do better? (c) What you should be proud of if you like free markets is that everybody with money and interest in a company can put their money in that company. In a non-free market like China you are way more limited with foreign investments. (d) "Free" means everybody can do what they want. If you want to limit what people are doing you are not talking free markets. That's in fact a reasonable argument from the Socialist spectrum. Don't allow people to run around freely, harming themselves and each other. One really has to decide what one likes in that spectrum. Each direction has their own pros and cons.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > (a) Why does paying $300mio to Twitter results in people getting killed? Who claimed it did? > (b) Why do you think your government/companies/people would do better? What makes you think I think that? > (c) What you should be proud of if you like free markets is that everybody with money and interest in a company can put their money in that company. In a non-free market like China you are way more limited with foreign investments. Why should I like free markets as a primary value? > (d) "Free" means everybody can do what they want. If you want to limit what people are doing you are not talking free markets. That's in fact a reasonable argument from the Socialist spectrum. Don't allow people to run around freely, harming themselves and each other. One really has to decide what one likes in that spectrum. Each direction has their own pros and cons. If you want to limit my ability to erect a government that limits what you can do, then we are not talking freedom. Agree?

otempomores 9y ago

TL,DidRead: Not prophets of progress but prison wardens.

tryingagainbro 9y ago

Saudi Oil Fuels Our cars and Industry. It’s Time to Ask Why. At least we're getting some of the money back in investment. But yeah, a major investor, especially in hard times can have clout and can influence a lot of things. With one suggestion...

R_haterade 9y ago

Why this story, and why right now? Think!

sadlyNess 9y ago

Is it fair/unfair to chalk this down to plain objectivism? That the source of money isnt that important as long as it gives me a chance to Change The World™..?

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
You're right, it doesn't matter. Thirty years ago it didn't matter, there was no such thing as criminalizing the source of money before then. This is a fake stigma, you don't have to rationalize it either. Unparalleled economic growth continued to happen because it didn't matter to anyone of importance and status. Whatever fake stigmas were shoved down the throats of the morally subscribed underclass only serve to keep them squabbling and maintaining the social and economic order which has always been here.

denisehilton 9y ago

They are still trying to destroy their economy by imposing meaningless taxes for expats. Their strategy is going to fail.

richardknop 9y ago

This article is quite hypocritical. If you are going to single out Saudi money as immoral or let's say unethical, you have to apply the same meter to all countries. And this isn't just Russia which is currently being sanctioned hard but also notably China or some other ME and African countries. Now, if you want to know my personal opinion, I am very critical of Saudi Arabia and if Russia and Iran are treated as enemies and sanctioned I think the treatment of SA should be the same.

tek-cyb-org 9y ago

Israel, the racist state, also fuels the tech industry. I don't hear any complaints from the new york times?

skrebbel 9y ago
Note, you're getting downvoted not because of your actual point, but because of the needlessly inflammatory "Israel, the racist state".
sctb 9y ago
Please don't violate the guidelines like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

KKKKkkkk1 9y ago

I would expect an article with that kind of title to be published in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times, not the technology section. I'm wondering whether this might be motivated by the Times's financial interests.

karmapolic 9y ago

its makes me wonder if media is responsible for the hypocrisy in most of us?

Santosh83 9y ago

Saudi oil fuels most of the world for that matter. Maybe we should all be asking ourselves questions about how we live?

ringaroundthetx 9y ago

So taking money from a government is now "losing your moral compass" OKAY. Yes, keep trying to tell us what to think that worked out SOOOO well last year.

prestonpesek 9y ago

Maybe we should ask how human rights abuses plan to persist if their proponents are funding new platforms of self expression and better flows of information that offer tremendous empowerment for the average person to learn about and speak out against such injustices. This seems a poor strategy if the goal is to keep the people ignorant and subject to the ancient stupidity of religious dogma.

Mediterraneo10 9y ago
I daresay you are a few years behind. Social networking hasn’t proven to be quite the platform for self-expression and resistance to oppression that it may have seemed a decade ago. A number of authoritarian states now have deep social network penetration, but they have managed to neuter political criticism. Requiring that one use one's real name and identifiable details (like a mobile phone number; in many countries you have to show your ID to buy a SIM card) helps ensure an atmosphere of self-censorship, where people don’t air strident views too much because they worry about the consequences. > the goal is to keep the people ignorant and subject to the ancient stupidity of religious dogma The present wave of fundamentalist Orthodoxy in Russia (demanding a ban on screenings of the film Mathilda, attacking other arts figures or those who would try to shield property from Church repossession, etc.) is actually mobilized in large part through social-networking platforms.

StanislavPetrov 9y ago

No, its time to stop pretending that the "tech industry" is some sort of champion of freedom and goodness. There is nothing inherently good about tech or the tech industry. Governed properly, platforms and services like Twitter and Google can be valuable tools in creating and sustaining a free and open society. Nothing about their behavior suggests this is the case. Virtually every tech company has crumbled without much hesitation when put under pressure from authoritarian governments from China to the United States. Not only are these tech platforms quick to acquiesce to the requests(and threats) from governments, but they have proven just as willing to engage in shady and subversive practices to support their business model (and those of their advertisers and clients).

forapurpose 9y ago
More concretely, the tech industry does good if and only if people reading this (and others like them) do good, including by advocating for good to their peers, employers, etc. There is nothing inherently good about the industry, or about you and me. How to do it is complicated. If people like the Saudis offer money, consider the consequences. Consider your power to say 'no' to the influence they may wish to wield and how much you are legitimizing them by association. As an example, Chinese censors now influence Hollywood. The Chinese government threatens to deny their market to those who don't cooperate, and so Americans and the world see films that are effectively censored, to a degree, by the Chinese government. For example, in the 1990s Disney made the film Kundun, about the Dalai Lama. China penalized Disney heavily in the domestic market. In October 1998, [Disney head Michael] Mr. Eisner met Zhu Rongji, who had just been named prime minister, at China’s leadership compound in Beijing. Mr. Eisner apologized for “Kundun,” calling it a “stupid mistake,” according to a transcript of the meeting. “This film was a form of insult to our friends, but other than journalists, very few people in the world ever saw it,” Mr. Eisner said during the meeting. (“Kundun” bombed, taking in just $5.7 million against a production budget of about $30 million.) Mr. Eisner said the company had learned a lesson. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/business/international/china-disney.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/business/international/ch... Seen many films critical of China lately?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

odiroot 9y ago

Why now, New York Times? Just after Saudis started to clean their house. What's your point? This article cannot be accidental.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
For what it's worth, I don't trust the process of corrupt organizations "cleaning house" in general. The housecleaning could easily be of people with insufficient loyalty.
gtirloni 9y ago
Because that's how news works. There are more incentives (i.e. more eyeballs) to talk about the latest news and people who are in power today. If Congo becomes a global investiment power in the future, you'll hear more about Congo. Of course we should all be wary of market manipulations by people with easy access to lots of eyeballs but this article is too widespread to have any direct impact on the market or a specific company.
molmalo 9y ago
My best guess, is that Saudi Arabia has been pushing very hard against Qatar lately, who has enormous amounts of capital and influence in media through it's advertisement contracts (via lots of companies and holdings directly or virtually controlled by them)... Another option, the recent detention of Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal (same reason, money and influence over media).

severian1778 9y ago

because americans are too cheap to invest?

nautilus12 9y ago

Aside from simply diversifying their portfolio are there any prominant deep state theories as to why Saudi Arabia would want to prop up tech? For example, one such theory could be that Apple is being funded by Saudi Arabia to specifically build addictive technologies so the American public is enmeshed in confusing contradictory media sources rendering the US public largely ineffective and allowing them a secret backdoor to collect data on the American public.

bcraven 9y ago
What a hilariously convoluted plan! Here's an easier one- oil is running out so the Kingdom needs to diversify. Tech provides investment and job opportunities.
- nautilus12 9y ago
  This was just an example

NumberCruncher 9y ago

Because money does not stink.

mastazi 9y ago

> By accepting these investments, tech companies get to revel in the branding glory of global good while taking billions from a government that stands against many of those goals It seems to me that all (or at least almost all) of the companies cited in the article are now (as of Nov 2017) public companies, how are they supposed to not accept investments? On the one hand I understand the criticism because many of those investments came before those companies went public (e.g. the one, cited in the article, that Twitter took in 2011) but what would be the proposed action now? The article seemed to me a bit simplistic.

abalashov 9y ago

The developed world already transfers gargantuan sums of wealth to the Saudis for energy supplies, and has done so for many decades. What exactly is the moral distinction here? From a 50,000 ft view, it seems that the social bargain we have with the Saudis is what it is, and the particular modes of capital flow aren't the critical issue. If nothing else, massive inputs of fossil fuels are required to sustain the Valley tech economy, too, in all kinds of direct and indirect ways. Tech has been helping make the oil autocracies rich since forever.

aptidude187 9y ago

Talking about human rights violations but not even mentioning Israel? This is really some agenda driven piece, don‘t insult the reader‘s intelligence.

jernfrost 9y ago
I disagree. The human rights abuses of Israel are if anything over reported. How often do you e.g. hear about Israeli abuses vs Sri Lanken, Indonesian etc? No country had gotten as many UN resolutions or attempts of it against itself despite in the grand scheme of things they don’t make the top 10. Typically these resolutions are filed by arab countries with far worse humanitarian record.

zabana 9y ago

Well, Saudi money comes from oil revenue, which is measured in US dollars. So really Saudi Arabia is just putting that money back into your pockets, so why all the hate ? (And please if you could step down from your high arrogant western horse for one moment and avoid the old "yeah but women can't drive" rhetoric, that would be much appreciated).

arkh 9y ago

The NY Times has a beef against the tech industry. It's time to ask why.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

prestonpesek 9y ago

If humanity wants to improve the net balance of human rights, what better way than to reallocate available financial capital away from regimes that subscribe to undesirable religious dogma, and toward a new generation of leaders who believe in progress through the erosion of ignorance, by creating platforms of empowerment and enlightenment by means of a freer flow of information, via digital channels that transcend obsolete political and cultural borders. If the Saudi agenda is to propagate Islam, then the internet is a terrible thing to invest in.

lend000 9y ago

Sensational pseudo-journalism making an issue out of nothing. There will rarely be a company that has the luxury to turn down funding on some misplaced moral high ground. Should we enact an embargo? Sanctions always work, right? Or at least they make the poorest inhabitants of the country suffer (see NK, Cuba, Yemen).

ne08 9y ago

I'm Saudi, and I can confirm this is a bullshit, this crown prince only wants to steal more money. He is an idiot his mind is empty don't fall for these propaganda.

nextstep 9y ago

Israel is much more closely tied to the US tech industry and is also a flagrant abuser of human rights yet this article ignores this obvious comparison?