3 ms·

I don't get the reasoning to be against it. If your goal is "global liberation", taking money from oppressive regimes its a pretty darn fast way to do it. You m

I don't get the reasoning to be against it. If your goal is "global liberation", taking money from oppressive regimes its a pretty darn fast way to do it. You make the oppressors pay for the future liberation. We should applaud if thats whats happening.

remarkEon 9y ago
I think it's naive to think that taking money from oppressive regimes has no other effect than depleting their cash reserves. Google and Facebook seem to have no qualms about acquiescing to Chinese censorship demands. I think it's folly to think Saudi money won't or doesn't have at least some nefarious influence somewhere. It's worth at least taking a look.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Its worth 'taking a look', sure, but its definitely been the other way around. The article itself reminds us of how Twitter was important during the Arab Spring. Wouldn't that Saudi money have been instrumental in the opposite of what the article points at?
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    It is not “definitely” the other way around. Quite the contrary. The Arab Spring began in 2010 and lasted several years. The (first) Saudi investment in Twitter didn’t happen until December of 2011, and by then much of the region was already on fire. In fact, it’s notable that after the $300M investment, the following summer is when Syria devolved into total Civil War - with February being when Assad invaded Homs. So, no, I’m still skeptical that we should be allowing this. Given the regional alignment of the Saudis, seeing Syria (an Iranian ally) devolve into chaos wouldn’t have been something they’d exactly move mountains to stop.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      "I’m still skeptical that we should be allowing this." Who is we. It's a very different thing to say that there is an ideological compromise or hipocrisy, to State enforced commercial blockades. And the dire situation of syria doesn't have anything to do with Tweeter. Its as relatable as saying that we should ban dates because they come from the middle east, funding terrible wars.
Boothroid 9y ago
More likely you make yourself a slave to that regime.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Slave to the regime? Really? Is that what you get from using twitter, facebook and lyft? Its a Saudi conservative paradise?
  - Boothroid 9y ago
    I suppose the opposite is to believe that investors wield no influence over a company.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      As far as we know, the ones that are committing ideological suicide are the Saudis.
      - Boothroid 9y ago
        Oh yeah? Don't know about the US, but certainly here in Europe criticism of Islam is verging on thought crime these days. If you want to know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticise.

remarkEon 9y ago

I think it's naive to think that taking money from oppressive regimes has no other effect than depleting their cash reserves. Google and Facebook seem to have no qualms about acquiescing to Chinese censorship demands. I think it's folly to think Saudi money won't or doesn't have at least some nefarious influence somewhere. It's worth at least taking a look.

conanbatt 9y ago
Its worth 'taking a look', sure, but its definitely been the other way around. The article itself reminds us of how Twitter was important during the Arab Spring. Wouldn't that Saudi money have been instrumental in the opposite of what the article points at?
- remarkEon 9y ago
  It is not “definitely” the other way around. Quite the contrary. The Arab Spring began in 2010 and lasted several years. The (first) Saudi investment in Twitter didn’t happen until December of 2011, and by then much of the region was already on fire. In fact, it’s notable that after the $300M investment, the following summer is when Syria devolved into total Civil War - with February being when Assad invaded Homs. So, no, I’m still skeptical that we should be allowing this. Given the regional alignment of the Saudis, seeing Syria (an Iranian ally) devolve into chaos wouldn’t have been something they’d exactly move mountains to stop.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    "I’m still skeptical that we should be allowing this." Who is we. It's a very different thing to say that there is an ideological compromise or hipocrisy, to State enforced commercial blockades. And the dire situation of syria doesn't have anything to do with Tweeter. Its as relatable as saying that we should ban dates because they come from the middle east, funding terrible wars.

Boothroid 9y ago

More likely you make yourself a slave to that regime.

conanbatt 9y ago
Slave to the regime? Really? Is that what you get from using twitter, facebook and lyft? Its a Saudi conservative paradise?
- Boothroid 9y ago
  I suppose the opposite is to believe that investors wield no influence over a company.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    As far as we know, the ones that are committing ideological suicide are the Saudis.
    - Boothroid 9y ago
      Oh yeah? Don't know about the US, but certainly here in Europe criticism of Islam is verging on thought crime these days. If you want to know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticise.