Discrimination by media

It bugged me yesterday yet it it was Forbes with their BS. And now the Guardian most useless person and champion for discrimination (aka Stephanie Kirchgaessner) makes another anti-Saudi Arabia article. I wonder why the Guardian keeps Katharine Viner around. As I see it, she is as useless as some other person we might know. So lets have a look at the article that angers me so.  It is ‘Alarm on Capitol Hill over Saudi investment in Twitter’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/03/saudi-twitter-investment-us-national-security-risk), yes it is 3 weeks old, but that was in this case intentional. It starts right off the bat “Possible access to users’ data could pose national security risk and could be used to target kingdom’s dissidents”. Well Stephanie (Katharine too)? You used ‘possible’ which is neither here nor their, which is not a yes or a no. You have had three weeks and the both of you get enough money to sort it out. Is it a yes or a no? And where is the national security? As such what ‘rights’ does an investor like Prince Alwaleed bin Talal have regarding Twitter and its data? And then when we look at it we see “his investment company, Kingdom Holding, which first invested in Twitter in 2011”, as such Prince Alwaleed bin Talal had been an investor in Twitter for 11 years and it took you this long to figure out that there was a national security issue. How fucking useless are you two? (Reference to Viner and Kirchgaessner) And after three weeks we still do not know anything, do we? I am not interested in these putzes Ron Wyden and Chris Murphy as I see it near useless politicians who seek the limelight and Kirchgaessner when it comes to anti-Saudi articles is happy to oblige. And then we get “The Twitter investment does not appear to offer either Alwaleed or the Saudi government any formal control over Twitter. Musk is now the company’s sole director. But the kingdom’s known use of the platform as a propaganda tool”, as such it has been three weeks, do they or do they not have any formal control? You have had three weeks to figure it out. We see no response of such questions from Twitter or its spokesperson either, do we?  And when we see “Rules surrounding such reviews by the US Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS), which has the power to unwind transactions if they are deemed to threaten US national security, have usually been triggered when the foreign entity (in this case, Saudi Arabia) has assumed control of a company or asset” but they weren’t were they? So do you have any evidence in the last three weeks that sheds light on any of this or are you as useless as I always have found you to be and in this case your editor in chief with you? 

I have no idea who Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is, but I have a mindset to sell him some of my 

iP just to piss you off. How about my 5G IP, should fetch me a pretty penny? Or perhaps an additional $6,000,000,000 in annual IT revenue for starters (it could grow). I am so sick and tired of your BS and unsubstantiated issues that go nowhere. First Forbes with its slapping of Elon Musk, never ending slapping, now another piece by you two (the editor in chief is guilty by association) and no one is looking into the partnership between Microsoft and Tencent, why is that? Or were the so called ‘animosity’ pieces by Microsoft stakeholders enough? But the indications are that the Tencent device is running Microsoft at the core, so is that true or is that false? I cannot tell, but it is not my job, it is yours and you aren’t doing yours.

It pisses me off to no end.