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.
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?
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.
"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.
