Late to the party

Yes, that was me. In this case I got late to the party. This is about an article by Stephanie Kirchgaessner where (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/18/snapchat-saudi-arabia-ties) which is almost a month old where we see ‘Saudis accused of using Snapchat to promote crown prince and silence critics’. I have had my issues with her. This is massively anti Saudi, she is what I regard to be a tool for any anti-Saudi activity. Yet, I need to keep a clear mind and let me take you through what I found.

Metrics
1. the Saudi culture ministry, has more than 20 million users in the kingdom – including an estimated 90% of 13-to-34-year-olds.
2. One senior Snap Inc executive recently called it an “extension of the [kingdom’s] social fabric”. One of the company’s largest single investors is Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who in 2018 invested $250m in the company.
These are the metrics, there are more numbers in the article to ‘spice up’ the article. 

Accusations
The accusations include the following.
1. Saudi Arabia appears to be exploiting the US messaging app Snapchat to promote the image of its crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, while also imposing draconian sentences on influencers who use the platform to post even mild criticism of the future king.

So, it is ‘appears’? What evidence is supporting the ‘appears’? 

Then we get to ‘imposing draconian sentences’ on what people, what are the metrics, what are the numbers and names of those who received these draconian sentences? 

Then we get more emotions with “Close watchers of Saudi-based verified accounts say the platform is used by many influencers to promote Bin Salman’s image, with influencers widely and uniformly sharing any new photographs of the prince or other video content that promotes him.” We see more things like ‘many’, we are not given something like “Well over a hundred influencers”, we merely get many. 

Then we are given “People who spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity to protect contacts in the kingdom say that posts (or “Snaps”) are closely monitored by Saudi security services. In one case, influencers who are not political were questioned by security services for not posting enough fawning Snaps about the crown prince, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.” So not only is the Guardian ‘hiding’ behind anonymity, we get ‘people’ again, no numbers, not ‘a group of witnesses’, merely people. Then we get the question on what evidence there is that Saudi security was monitoring? None was given as far as I can tell. Is evidence not essential here? It is followed by ‘in one case’ so is this the only case? And is that one case the same person as ‘according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter’? All questions and an utter lack of clarity. Is this what the Guardian adds up to? 

My setting is not that I am stating that Saudi Arabia is innocent, but if they are guilty, it better comes with ACTUAL evidence. Then we also get to see “One Saudi Snapchat influencer, Mansour Al-Raqiba, who has more than 2 million followers, was arrested in May 2022 in connection to social media posts in which he acknowledged having been blackmailed by an individual who claimed they had heard him criticising Bin Salman’s Vision 2030 economic plan. A person familiar with the case said Raqiba had been sentenced to 27 years in jail.” So, if he has been sentenced, there is a court case? Where was this case set? This quote links to another article by the same writer from June 2023, all emotions and a total lack of what I regard to be evidence. Can someone muzzle this chihuahua? You see, there is nothing, not even in Arab News or Al-Jazeera on Mansour Al-Raqiba. I am not debating his existence, or his activities. I found one other article in the Telegraph giving us ‘Saudi star escapes jail time in London following accusations of animal cruelty’, the article is behind a paywall, so that is all I have. You would think that if a person had that many follower, the papers would be filled with his exploits and his snapchat activities. There is a total lack of this. 

There is a lot more, but I will let you discover them. I believe that the Guardian is losing its grip on reality. I have had my issues with Stephanie Kirchgaessner in the past. It seems to me that if she has nothing, she merely bashes Saudi Arabia. You see, if this is not the case the evidence would be a lot better. You can make a case towards any security (in this case Saudi), but with places like snapchat there should be a mountain of evidence. In that regard the flimsy approach to the University of Toronto Citizen Lab would have a lot more. We are merely given “Petroleum-enriched Gulf oligarchs have a disturbing track record of punishing social media users, and employing multidimensional digital influence operations to silence critics and undertake transnational repression”, so what EXACTLY is ‘multidimensional digital influence operations’? The lack of specifics and precise explanations make me wonder if any of it is real. And that is not on me, that is on the flimsy and shady writing by Stephanie Kirchgaessner. 

Then we get to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who is a Saudi Arabian billionaire businessman, investor, philanthropist and royal. He is also the founder and CEO of the Kingdom Holding Company. I have been looking into that for other reasons. In the article he is mentioned once, regarding the investment. So what is he here? Window dressing? 

Then we get to Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri. We get “Snapchat’s popularity makes it an ideal tool for a repressive regime that exploits Snapchat in the dissemination of state propaganda, character assassination of detractors, and surveillance of activists and influencers”. What we do not get is that he is living in exile in Canada. We are also not given that he walked out toward exile with more millions than the sum of all US generals have (Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri is a former general from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), we are also not given what the Middle East Eye gives us (at https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-saudi-arabia-former-spy-chief-crown-prince-case-thrown) where we are given ‘US judge throws out former spy chief’s case against crown prince’ which was given to us in October 2022. Where we see “Jabri’s lawyers argued that, given the close ties Jabri had developed with the US intelligence community, the crown prince “purposefully targeted” the United States because his alleged attempt to kill the former spy chief was meant to disrupt US-Saudi intelligence sharing.” So why is this case, a case of someone living in exile in Canada being heard in the US courts? Why was this not given to the Canadian courts? Too many questions on an article that has too many flimsy sides and if I can see that in minutes, why did the chief editor of the Guardian (Katharine Viner) not see this? And the questions just keep on coming. Was there ever a serious case against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? I am not stating this is not the case, I am stating that the article gives us serious doubts that there is a serious case against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

In case you doubt me (which is always fair enough), read up and make your own mind up. It is there for a reason, not to follow, but to grow and learn.

On the upside, I came up with another game , another piece of IP that could be freeware for developers for the Amazon Luna and Tencent handheld only. It is a streaming game (the only way this would work I reckon) and as such I am planning to post this tomorrow. Yup, after the mid-week running up to weekend.