Bryan Fogel on why streaming platforms were scared of releasing The Dissident | Hacker News Reader

Bryan Fogel on why streaming platforms were scared of releasing The Dissident

variety.com

213 pointsmkl95134 comments

It's sadly not the first time that Netflix has avoided controversy with MBS:

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/netflix-cou...

It's sad, but in a way, this type of censorship tends to increase interest in the content, so hopefully this happens here. The Khashoggi murder is one of the most blatently horrible incidents in the last few years that should be discussed at length and those responsible actually held responsible.

I'd never heard of the film, but now I am definitely going to check it out.

>> one of the most blatently horrible incidents

For all the horror, this was still only one person, one victim, killed. There are a great many other incidents in which large numbers of people have been deliberately killed yet we seem to just take such things as normal. The specifics of Khashoggi's murder were shocking, but the murder or disappearance of such persons is far from unusual on the world stage.

Fyi, a similar Saudi kill team was recently intercepted at a Canadian airport. Such attempts at murder barely make news, only coming to light via lawsuits months later.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55232926

"The court filing says the group - which included a man from the same department as the man accused of dismembering Khashoggi - were carrying two bags of forensic tools. However, Canadian border agents "quickly became suspicious" of the group and refused them entry after interviewing them, it says."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/saudi-hit-squad-aljab...

"Public Safety Minister Bill Blair would not comment on the specific allegations in the lawsuit but said the government was aware of incidents in which foreign actors have tried to monitor, intimidate or threaten Canadians and people in Canada."

> For all the horror, this was still only one person, one victim, killed. There are a great many other incidents in which large numbers of people have been deliberately killed yet we seem to just take such things as normal. The specifics of Khashoggi's murder were shocking, but the murder or disappearance of such persons is far from unusual on the world stage.

This is hugely important context to always keep in mind. The fact that MBS had managed to bamboozle the western media into fawning over his token "reforms" prior to the Saudis brazenly murdering Kashoggi was a disgrace.

It's telling that the media only really started caring about Saudi governmental corruption and criminality after one of their own - a fellow pundit who traveled in elite western circles - was grotesquely killed. MBS presumably had good reason to believe he could get away with murder, with Kashoggi being the exception that proves the rule.

So little of this comment makes any sense at all.

> The fact that MBS had managed to bamboozle the western media into fawning over his token "reforms" prior to the Saudis brazenly murdering Kashoggi was a disgrace.

If Khashoggi and the Washington Post had stuck to fawning rather than sharp criticism of the Saudi government, he'd be alive.

> It's telling that the media only really started caring about Saudi governmental corruption and criminality after one of their own - a fellow pundit who traveled in elite western circles - was grotesquely killed.

The media "caring" about Saudi governmental corruption is why Khashoggi was assassinated.

Kill a hundred thousand Yemenis and nobody bats an eye, but you bone-saw one little washington post reporter and now it's a crisis.

Also, people seem to care more if there is a single victim as opposed to a bigger group. The story becomes more relatable.

I'm not saying that there aren't other good examples. But, to target a US journalist like this, at a foreign embassy where there are recordings, logs of people entering and leaving (with visitor logs) where you could conceivably find those responsible and run it up the chain for accountabiliity is the rare element here that could and should be used.

If we actually start to make an example here, that this is not acceptable in our society, then perhaps others will feel less emboldened to do the same.

Here's a good example, but from America. I find it especially abhorrent when an American President orders the killing of American citizens (at least 1 directly ordered with several other "unintended" murders) on foreign soil without their guaranteed 5th Amendment trial, which states, in part, "that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

> Since 2009, the United States, in the conduct of U.S. counterterrorism operations against al-Qa’ida and its associated forces outside of areas of active hostilities, has specifically targeted and killed one U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi. The United States is further aware of three other U.S. citizens who have been killed in such U.S. counterterrorism operations over that same time period: Samir Khan, ‘Abd al-Rahman Anwar al-Aulaqi, and Jude Kenan Mohammed. These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States. -Attorney General Eric Holder, May 22, 2013

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/19/kesha-roge...

I'm in agreement for sure, extra judicial killing of any kind is questionable. I think we should review all of them and hold those responsible for their actions.

However, drone strikes have "collatoral damage" and unintended side effects like this (not saying this makes them good and they should continue) especially when they're deployed in areas openly holding people who are in active conflict against people in their own countries and there is military deployed. Again, this doesn't make it right.

There's a big difference between that and a lone citizen applying for a marriage VISA, in another country entirely, being kidnapped and murdered due to his writing against the regime. And, due to the nature of the relationship between the US and SA it has been nearly covered up.

I agree. The details of the killing itself while shocking aren't the most shocking aspect of this.

The most shocking aspects were the context(US resident, WAPO journalist, how blatant it was) and how we witnessed our government wipe MBSs ass with our values. In slow motion. We knew EXACTLY what was going on, how disgusting it was, and it unfolded anyway; nobody could stop it.

>> this is not acceptable in our society

World society? American society? Turkish society? Or Saudi society? All apply, some more so than others, depending on which aspects of the incident one feels more relevant. The suppression, exile or even disappearance of dissidents is not universally condemned.

In any of those societies. There's no country in the world except maybe North Korea where this kind of behavior is generally seen as acceptable; even in Saudi Arabia, the government officially disapproved and tried the people who did it for murder.

> even in Saudi Arabia, the government officially disapproved and tried the people who did it for murder.

So that it could save MBS's ass when his people questioned why the rest of the world was hating on him. A lot of people in Saudi Arabia were shocked by the gruesome nature of the murder (which American media deftly used to sling shit on them, since Khashoggi was one of their own). If Khashoggi was some ordinary low profile Saudi citizen, and not distantly related to the Royal family and being from a wealthy family himself, his death would have been pretty routine in Saudi Arabia. It's an open secret that Prince Bonesaw ordered the killing, and that the later execution was a farce. Even then, I suspect the execution was disposal for a sloppy job.

The shocking part isn't so much the murder as it is the brazenness, i.e., ineptitude of the whole thing. The Saudis seemed to act like it was their right to kill Khashoggi, else they would have planned better to avoid getting caught.

This is even more evident in reactions to the Russian governments assassinations, attempted and successful. It's not that we don't think they'd try to kill people, but the way they don't really even bother to cover it up is what is really shocking. It's a slap in the face of the idea of law and order - murderers are at least supposed to do their best to hide their actions.

Actually they miscalculated and didn’t realize Turkish intelligence had thoroughly infiltrated their embassy. Like so well that the Saudis had actually done a counter surveillance sweep and not discovered it.

They then further miscalculated the politics of the situation and didn’t think the Turks would weigh in once it became clear the murder was captured on tape.

>It's a slap in the face of the idea of law and order - murderers are at least supposed to do their best to hide their actions.

False flag operations on the other hand are supposed to let many things unhidden...

If you have information to share, then share it. Making vague implications with nothing to back them up about state-sponsored killings is the height of crass.

Have you reviewed e.g. Bellingcat's reportage on Russian involvement in the Navalniy poisoning?

I don't understand how the crisis in Yemen, greatly exacerbated by MBS and supported by the US government, a crisis in which 200k+ Yemenis have been killed (including 80k+ children dead who starved to death), 3 million+ displaced, with the deadliest cholera outbreak in modern history - isn't on the front page news every day. Every little tidbit of court minutae at the venal Trump White House was covered (which press secretary was leaving, who was getting pardons), but not this enormous crisis that the US has direct control over.

It was disgusting how easily MBS was fawned over (see this absurd feature on MBS by Thomas Friedman [1]), how the Western media only cared about one of their own (Khashoggi was a WaPo journalist), and how quickly companies are coming back to back MBS's fantastical investment schemes like the Jetsons city-from-scratch NEOM, after stepping back for just a year.

The US doesn't even import all that much oil from Saudi Arabia! It's only use is as a lever to press other countries that rely on Saudi oil to come under the US fold.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-...

> The US doesn't even import all that much oil from Saudi Arabia! It's only use is as a lever to press other countries that rely on Saudi oil to come under the US fold.

True, but they are the U.S.'s #1 purchaser of military weapons.

> The U.S. sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 — up 33 percent from the previous fiscal year, and a near record. In 2017, the U.S. cleared some $18 billion in new Saudi arms deals.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-buyer-o...

That is a good point.

That last sentence of yours is key. The US now is the top oil producer, but it's still useful to have KSA there to do our bidding- basically we can crush Russia's and Iran's oil industry instantly, any time we feel like it. And our newer gas discoveries in the US will also let us control that market.

Now, I think we shouldn't be supporting MBS, but I understand the logic behind it. I am sympathetic to the idea that if the House of Saud goes down, a bunch of our other friends in the region are going to be in real trouble- ie all the little emirates, Jordan, Israel, Egypt.

That piece of reporting by Friedman is simply grotesque.. How a journalist for a major paper like the Times could not only let himself be so visibly bamboozled by a murderous, corrupt autocrat like this particular prince but openly describe how he's being greased up for good PR and then call it straight reporting is laughable. Looks like some NY Times reporters keep the old Walter Duranty tradition safely alive. despicable.

He's an opinion columnist, which means you can say pretty much anything, without regard to journalistic standards. Opinion columnists only lose their jobs to bad scandals - you can advocate for awful wars or policies that kill millions no problemo.

I wouldn't call it censorship, as Netflix does not have any obligation to distribute a film, especially when such film may conflict with the company's financial interest (I assume what the article says is true).

I'm not sure I believe the claims that companies were afraid of this documentary for its content. For example you can rent or buy this movie on Amazon[1] or Apple[2]. If those companies were afraid of the content, that wouldn't have happened. The more likely excuse is that it is a niche documentary that didn't have enough financial upside to merit purchasing exclusive distribution rights and "Here is a documentary they don't want you to see" is great for marketing.

[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Dissident-Jamal-Kashoggi/dp/B08QTQFNT...

[2] - https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/the-dissident/id1544151386

> a niche documentary

niche like Russian doping?

From the article:

> The documentary about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi... was one of the hottest films at last year’s Sundance. It had glowing reviews, a ripped from the headlines subject, and a big-name director in Fogel, fresh off the Oscar-winning “Icarus,” a penetrating look at Russian doping that got the country banned from the Olympics.

> And yet, Netflix, which had previously released “Icarus,” and other streaming services such as Apple and Amazon steered clear of “The Dissident.”

Wikipedia has a separate article for reactions to Jamal Kashoggi's killing from around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_assassination...

Not sure you could call this a niche topic. Heck we're talking about it on HN.

The financial viability of a documentary isn't necessarily tied to the importance of the underlying story. This one is about a bigger story than Russian doping, but it doesn't appear to be nearly as good of a documentary as the director's previous work. Icarus won an Oscar while The Dissident isn't among to top 10 or so favorites in its category.

When purchasing a documentary, a network would either want something that could potentially become a big hit or potential add prestige by competing in awards. It doesn't appear likely that this documentary would have done either.

Did you read the article?

The film debuted at Sundance to broad critical appeal, with the Netflix CEO in attendance, and with tons of media coverage.

Netflix is already on the record pulling content at the specific request of Saudi Arabia. They explained their decision by saying they aren't in the 'truth to power business.'

https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20953210/netflix-reed-has...

Thinking this is a niche film and thinking this decision is based on a simple profitability analysis is incredibly naive.

Are you familiar with Sundance? Every year there are movies there that receive lots of attention and praise only to completely disappear from public consciousness. Being well liked at Sundance is not necessarily a recipe for either financial or broad critical success.

Here is a list from Variety of the the favorites for this year's best documentary feature Oscar[1]. The Dissident comes in at number 22. I can almost guarantee there are documentaries above it you haven't heard of. This documentary wasn't going to be a mainstream hit and it doesn't appear to be a serious contender for awards. There is little incentive for a streaming company to purchase it.

It is also worth noting that the issue with Hasan Minhaj's show was specifically it being viewable in Saudi Arabia. That is a very different issue than purchasing rights to a movie in the US or other global markets.

[1] - https://variety.com/feature/2021-oscars-best-documentary-fea...

Is winning an Oscar or being a mainstream hit the threshold for Netflix carrying a documentary?

Anyone can look at the catalog and see that's obviously not the case.

Setting the goal posts there while ignoring the obvious politics around the situation is simply naive.

How many of those documentaries on Netflix are exclusive to that platform, debuted on that platform, are popular Sundance movies, and from an Oscar winning filmmaker that wants to charge $20 for renting the movie? It isn't like there is a set price for every documentary. This movie was always going to come with a relatively big price tag compared to its financial viability.

I am not ignoring the politics of the situation. I simply said I don't know if the tale told in the article is believable because there are valid non-political reasons that seem to do a better job explaining what transpired.

"Debuted at Sundance to broad critical appeal" is basically a euphemism for niche. Every year there are very good movies which are hits at Sundance but never see any uptake after that.

I'm pretty sure allowing it be rented for extra money, but not bundling it with the rest, is also consistent with effective censorship + plausibile deniability.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/business/media/apple-gawk..., they are quite open about censoring things.

It is annoying to see the cheapening of the word "censorship" recently. It isn't censorship when a private company makes internal decisions about the content it wants to produce. It certainly isn't censorship when a company will share content on its platform but refuses to buy exclusive rights to the project. Apple and Amazon are facilitating people watching this movie. If MBS was going to retaliate for it, I don't think "it is only up for rental" is going to be a convincing excuse.

Also since you bring up the extra fee that this costs, I want to highlight the price. The distributors set the price at $20 for a rental. That is their decision not Apple's or Amazons. If they wanted this movie to seen by as many people as possible, lowering that price is going to do a lot more good than complaining to Variety. That $20 price makes me think the reason this is for rent on Amazon and not free with Prime is because the price tag would have been too high to justify purchasing exclusivity.

I think it's like the term 'prejudiced'. There's all sorts of prejudice, and some of it's not illegal, or even bad. But in normal usage, it's understood to be referring to unsavory prejudices against sex, race, etc.

Every publisher censors, and it's fine. That's part of their job. Censorship by the government, without or without the backing of law, is abhorrent (and I think that's what the term is normally understood to mean).

The muddied part are these huge enterprises that aren't part of the government, and yet whose actions against the public _feel_ like government dictates to the common man. Not decisions made between two people, like a publisher and an author... but a rule enforced by a faceless entity of overwhelming power.

I'm torn on the matter. I despise Twitter to the degree that I think negatively of anybody defending their behavior. However, I also don't want the government making laws controlling what Twitter is forced to host on their own servers.

Pox on both their houses.

Who said Censorshsip must be about the government? People do misuse "first amendment violation" but that unlike the concept of censorship, that is a very specific thing. Don't confuse the two.

The most common issues and concerns around censorship are specifically government mandated or enforced censorship for many reasons, as it helps hide abuses, can explicitly support abusive regimes, and generally doesn't allow 'the people to think for themselves' - enforced by jail time or other traumatic penalties (getting shot, in some places)

The underlying issue around using it as a term for things like platforms choosing what they do or do not want to publish, or private companies or actors choosing what they want to publish in their name (and taking the economic consequences for that) - is that a mandate that they CAN'T do that is it's own form of censorship, as it will by it's very nature have to proscribe what is and is not allowed to be said, and will restrict that entities ability to choose their own options.

Apple TV isn't censoring this movie. It is still available on their platform. They simply aren't buying exclusive distribution rights to this movie. That isn't censorship anymore than them turning down purchasing a movie I just filmed in my basement is censorship.

I keep seeing this sentiment, but the fact is his other documentary Icarus was HUGE on Netflix, and if The Dissident pops up on millions of people's feed saying "From the creator of Icarus!!", millions of people would watch it.

Them not being interested is suspiciously leaving a huge pile of money on the table.

Wait, it is available on Amazon? That's not what I understood from the article at all.

Exactly. They are spinning the story to the point of being misleading. They wanted an up front payment to purchase exclusive streaming rights. No one jumped at that. However these companies are still willing to host this movie on a revenue share model that comes with digital rentals/purchases. That is a big indicator the motivating factor was cost and not the danger of the content itself.

I saw this movie recently and just wanted to say I highly recommend taking the time to watch it.

The official website has a list of paid services that you can watch it on

https://thedissident.com/

You will also be able to find it elsewhere

Wow. It's been more than one decade since I've seen a website so terrible.

Anyone know if it's possible to purchase this movie outside of the streaming services? For example, as a Bluray disc, or simply an unencumbered video file?

cough.. torrent it... cough.

That is an option but hopefully a last resort.

I can believe it's a well-made production, but I'm curious if it has been verified for accuracy or it actually uncovered any new details.

Site seems busted for me.

EDIT: It's available for rent on Amazon Prime Video for anyone interested.

Does not seem available in Europe?

Facebook blatantly allowing the manipulation of politics.

Twitter / youtube deciding what the people can talk about.

Now netflix refusing content exposing a brazen crime with global implications.

For how long will we allow non elected superentities control our lives?

Want a solution? Have the government fund public broadcasting and communication sites like in various other countries. Wait, you don't want the government to see and control all your information and communication? But you also don't want private companies to do so?

edit: As for de-centralized approaches, imho those don't work great when you want creators to make money rather than simply having everyone pirate the movie.

This is not at all equivalent though. Netflix isn't refusing to allow this on their platform, they just weren't willing to pay for it. Fogle could post his video on youtube and it wouldn't be a problem. He wants to be paid millions of dollars to get a big distribution deal. That's squarely a privilege and not a right.

I know one way to not support a company.

If you are not wealthy enough to no longer have to work, your employer already controls more than a third of your life, and exerts all sorts of peripheral control through all the pressures necessary to maintain a specific job (location, social trail, etc.). Comparatively, what you describe seems like a non-issue

> For how long will we allow non elected superentities control our lives?

...you say, freely commenting on a site, that is freely discussing another site that is openly reporting on the fact that Netflix are doing this.

The mere fact that you know that this documentary exists and that Netflix is passing on it due to geopolitical influence I think is proof that Netflix is not controlling our lives?

Oh yes, everything is fine, because HN is not censoring some anonymous reader. Come on. Control over information might be the defining issue of this century. The danger is real and existencial and as a society we are completely unprepared to meet it.

My point isn’t that HN is fine, my point is that the internet is literally filled with places to engage in free discussion.

You’re worried that people won’t do that and that if they don’t, we should somehow force some Big Tech Co to indoctrinate them with an agenda that you find agreeable.

Just because most people elect to use a service despite having gobs of alternatives doesn’t make that service a monopoly.

Forget what I find agreeable or not, that is not the point. The point is that this movie, which in all likelihood would have done quite well, was supressed from netflix for political reasons. This supression will have a huge impact on the film's reach and therefore greatly reduced it's impact. The fact that netflix is now a political agent, with the power to manipulate a giant audience for inscrutable but likely very ugly reasons should worry us all. This is a dangerous state of affairs that should not be reflexively shrugged off just because the wrong tribe complained about it first. This is coming for us all.

My mom doesn’t read hacker news.

She didn’t see this film on the streaming services she pays for. She didn’t see it on the tv news or hear about it on the radio.

Is my mother’s life controlled and I’ve hacked my way to freedom?

Tell her about it. She will tell her friends. Streisand effect...

You’re missing the point.

We are the exception to the norm. Most people just watch whatever is on Netflix.

That’s not an argument for nationalizing Netflix and using it to indoctrinate people according to some agenda that you find agreeable.

What's your solution? Forcing Netflix to purchase and distribute content they don't want? Do we just force Netflix, or do we force every media company to host it? Who makes that decision?

Want to vote? Stop using Facebook, stop using Twitter, stop using Netflix. The film is available for streaming elsewhere. Go watch it.

A documentary about a journalist being murdered because he criticized a truly legitimately shit regime.

A documentary that almost everyone who watched it says is borderline child pornography.

Guess which one was on Netflix and which one wasn't.

I'm not sure how it affects your argument, but in the interest of accuracy (and presuming I haven't missed hearing about another controversial documentary) I'll mention that "Cuties" is not a documentary, but a fictional feature film. I haven't seen either.

> For how long will we allow non elected superentities control our lives?

What does that even mean? Who is it who's allowing or not allowing a media company to control people's lives?

It means people are scared enough of "Big Tech" to actually defend Donald Trump, which is what Angela Merkel did.

When he was banned from Twitter and YouTube and Facebook, they all perked up... because they realized, "That could be me..." If these companies can ban the most powerful human on the planet, they know they could be next, the moment they end up in the crosshairs.

Merkel made those statements because Germany has a specific cultural attitude towards censorship and privacy considering their own history.

Many comments are mentioning Netflix. It's worth mentioning Amazon and Apple have rejected it too.

Edit: Apple and Amazon seem to have picked up the documentary since the time of the interview.

I watched it on Apple TV.

Seems to be available on Amazon. (And worth watching!)

Bryan Fogel, the director, explains his disappointment that his documentary is not part of the regular subscription on (AppleTV, Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) streaming services here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/15p3DpjZeaXCwcXyGTytMj?

I'll have to listen to this episode.

I hope this will pick up some Streisand effect and soon every American will have seen this documentary. I don’t blame Netflix a lot for not picking this up, they are probably to lose a lot of money if they do.

It costs 20$. Are you going to sponsor it?

I liked reading books since when I was 12. I would read anything challenging, even if I wouldn't understanding.

I was also reading books of lyrics. I remember reading lyrics of Metallica, Iron Maiden, Sex Pistols songs, way before I actually listen to their music. That gave me an appreciation of the words/meaning.

On the Sex Pistol's song "God Save The Queen" they sang:

"God save the queen 'Cause tourists are money And our figurehead Is not what she seems"

I am not discussing the political aspect on the governing systems (Kingdom vs Anarchy), but the phrase "cause tourists are money" has so much wisdom in it. In modern 'american' language we would say "money talks, BS walks".

Just like NBA shat up and rolled over (oh yes they did) for China, Netflix (and the likes) do for Saudi Arabia.

There was a discussion a couple of days ago regarding users migrating from WhatsApp to Signal/Telegram and how "a few friends" declined, forcing the "many" to either ostracize them, or stick to WhatsApp.

MBS/Saudi Arabia do the same. If you want us, shut up and keep the status quo (murder, rape, inequality, torture). They got trillions of $. Wegot two options. Shut up and roll over (Netflix, NBA), or isolate them and allow them to develop similar/close services. The third option that "slowly they will join us".. well.. how slowly is slowly? 1 year? 5? 100? never? I fear they (SA/MBS) will always be 100 years behind this 'democratic' curve.

Probably about 25-35 years. That's about how long we can subsist on current proven oil reserves given the amount and given the yearly consumption of oil and accounting for usage increase and fluctuations.

Which is another way of saying we have 25-35 years to get electric cars up and running and to really "solve" the alternative energy crisis. This is why we need to be pouring massive amounts of money into fusion power research, because if we can crack that nut, we're set.

Or hey, maybe never.

Look at other Middle Eastern nations.

Even Youtube, Vimeo and Peertube?

Besides a simple Google search brings a free one on Youtube made by Deutche Welle.

Not all 'human rights' and 'freedom of speech' are equal. It matters foremost what is there to gain/lose. In this case its streaming services

'human rights' and 'freedom of speech' are just tools to undermine Geopolitical competitors.

I mean, look at how much Saudi venture capital - and MBS himself - is involved in Silicon Valley. https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/1/18511540/silicon-valley-...

The dissident was a good movie!

I just watched A Thousand Cuts over the weekend. It’s about Dutertes war against the Press and Maria Ressa.

https://youtu.be/LixnwDIh2wU

The bigger issue related to this is not the Khashoggi was tortured to death and dismembered, but that America's alliance with Saudi Arabia is both immoral and strategically stupid. However, Saudi Arabia's corrupt grip on our ruling class is so thorough that it is able to suppress speech like this that might make the Saudi government look even slightly bad.

We never get to the point to which the Saudi alliance is questioned at a fundamental level. The motte and bailey style 'debate' stays in the realm of whether or not the Khashoggi murder was bad, or on some other irrelevant side issue of the Saudi government's conduct. The problem, essentially, is our military alliance with Saudi Arabia. This is almost never debated. Only side issues such as Saudi women not being allowed to drive or Saudi use of the death penalty are ever allowed to be raised. It's considered 'unserious' to question the iron security guarantee that our republic provides to this royal family.

Saudi Arabia could turn 1 million Kahsoggis into meatballs and the American Op-Ed-Oligarchy would be unwilling to question the fundamental diplomatic issue of America's alliance with Saudi Arabia. We have already tested this commitment when a couple dozen Saudi nationals blew up the World Trade Center twice and the alliance with Saudi Arabia only strengthened as a response.

This would be like Gavrilo Princip killing Franz Ferdinand and the Habsburgs responding by increasing foreign and military aid to Serbia, encouraging Serbia to blow up more of its neighbors, then going to war on behalf of Serbia multiple times to increase its power and influence. 27D chess or corrupt-stupid-evil; you decide.

You can't question our alliance with Saudi Arabia without questioning our alliance with Israel. Well, you can, but the former flows from the latter. If we're going to be allies with Israel, then Iran is our enemy. If Iran is our enemy, then Saudi Arabia is our friend. We've come up with all sorts of other rationalizations over the years, but that is the core of it.

I've begun to see the faintest whiffs of questioning the Saudi alliance among the foreign policy establishment, but I suspect our deeply pro-Israel sentiments will prevent anything from changing for a long time.

> will prevent anything from changing

also petrodollars and preserving reserve currency status

JFK's attempts to stop Israel's nuclear weapons program ended when he got shot in the head. His successor, LBJ, dropped the issue.

> If Iran is our enemy, then Saudi Arabia is our friend

Why is this?

Can’t question the isreal alliance either, some things are just off topic.

That one is a lot stickier, because no one tried to systematically wipe out the Saudi people.

Hundreds of thousands of Saudis didn't immigrate here to escape certain death.

There's also the fact that America is still a very religious country - and takes it seriously - so many people support Israel because they really do believe they're protecting God's chosen people. No one should "wish" for war, but I've often wondered what would happen if Saudi Arabia decided to wage war against Israel. I'm very curious with whom America would ultimately side.

> There's also the fact that America is still a very religious country - and takes it seriously - so many people support Israel because they really do believe they're protecting God's chosen people.

Even that's stickier than it initially appears, in that some of the American evangelical supporters of Israel do so because they think it's necessary to start the End Times.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/h...

These prophesies don't actually end well for the Jews.

Everyone thinks their group is chosen by god. News at 6.

None of theses superstitions end well for humanity.

> Everyone thinks their group is chosen by god. News at 6.

Not all apocalyptic thinkers get a reasonable shot at the nuclear codes of the world's primary superpower every few years, though.

> There's also the fact that America is still a very religious country - and takes it seriously - so many people support Israel because they really do believe they're protecting God's chosen people.

From what I understand, there is also a surprisingly large base of devout Christians who support Israel in the hopes/belief that it will lead to a prophesied battle at Armaggedon, helping to usher the end of the world. Apparently [0] George Bush Jr. may have been a believer in this theory (though others dispute this: [1])

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/a...

[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/15/bush-chirac-and-the-war...

Your comment reminds me of a series of concepts that I've discovered while going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole of protestant theology:

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

Some of this stuff makes the blood curdle. If it was spewed by some guy in a turban the US would probably have had him killed with robots from the sky by now...

"According to an Ifop opinion poll in October, 57 per cent of French Muslims under 25 think sharia law is more important than the law of the French republic"

https://www.ft.com/content/b6c0681f-3a0a-40fa-8b90-86997925f...

In the past few decades, unequivocal support for Israel has fallen among American Jews, while it has grown among Evangelical Christians. Admittedly, these numbers are complicated, as a majority American Jews say they feel an "emotional connection" to Israel, but nearly 60% are critical of the country's policies, and fewer than 25% are both pro-Israel and supportive of the current government policies. See https://jewishcurrents.org/are-95-of-jews-really-zionists/, https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/80-percent-of-us-jews-say-the..., etc.

Christianity and Protestantism in particular have historically been sources of antisemitism and this was true up till well within the 20th century. The fact that hardcore American Christians have now been converted to pro-Israel fanatics, makes the whole thing much weirder, if anything.

The reality is more complicated than that. This line of "pro-Israel fanatics" goes back quite some time, albeit in different forms. Take British Israelism as an example. [0]

Granted, British Israelism would morph into an even more insane (and downright misanthropic) off-shoot, but you know, humans gonna human I guess. I think these attitudes about Israel have existed for quite a long time anyway.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

"If Israel did not exist, the United States would have to invent one to protect her interests in the region"

“My father would say, were he a Jew, he would never, never entrust the security of his people to any individual nation, no matter how good and how noble it was, like the United States.”

For some reason, we never talk about the religious motivations behind the creation of the state of Israel.

The balfour declaration was signed well before the holocaust had ever happened; using the holocaust to justify the creation of the colony if israel is anachronistic at best.

The Israel alliance is hard to question simply because, unlike Saudi Arabia, Israel is very popular in the US. If all you saw was the polling data - there’s a country A with 70% favorability overall, at least 50% within each political party, and their main rival B has 20% favorability - you wouldn’t be surprised to see a strong and hard to question alliance with A.

Haha. It seems you have hit the nail on the head with exacting precision

Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more.

And what's worse, its over oil - a resource that, no matter what your stance on climate change is - from which we are rapidly transitioning away.

I don’t think it’s just over oil. Saudi Arabia is also considered strategically important as an outpost against Iran. I went to Google Iran and this was the top hit [1]. The timing of these two stories is very interesting.

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-exploring-...

Absolutely. I am pro-climate change and I still think the US’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is strategically stupid.

> I am pro-climate change

Wait, what? What do you mean?

What does “no matter your stance on climate change” mean? (parent comment)

For the record, I am also pro-gravity.

Whether you believe climate change is real, not real, man-made, not man-made, naturally induced, unnaturally induced, etc., its all pointless.

Electric cars are the future no matter what. They're quieter, they produce less emissions over their life cycle, they have a lower TCO (total cost of ownership), they're faster, and frankly, every electric vehicle I've ever driven is just plain more fun to drive (granted I've only ever driven three, but still...).

Our shipping is moving away from oil and to natural gas, because shipping is an enormous contributor to CO2 emissions.

So oil's value is going to be dropping precipitously in the next 100 years.

It sounds as if you fought for the climate to change faster, liberating tons of methane in the atmosphere and burning fossil fuels like crazy.

Which is a stance that nobody believe, so it's clearly not that.

Even people who deny climate change as a science wouldn't describe themselves as "fighting for the climate to change faster."

This would actually be hilarious... some deranged Bond villain who's conspiring to melt the permafrost to release all the methane so as to drive humanity extinct, lol...

That's what Bitcoin is, essentially.

As someone with quite a few Bitcoins, and who actively mines using my hardware when it isn't in use, that is most emphatically not what it is.

Every cent you "save" is diluted when the Federal Reserve decides to print up a trillion or two.

You can't "print up" a few trillion Bitcoins. You can't add more. You can't magically make them go away (unless of course your throw away your hard drive with the wallet data on it...).

And unlike any other type of currency, where some shady deal can take place and there's absolutely no record of it... there's a ledger of every single transaction ever made on the Bitcoin network. You may not know who that address belongs to, but the transaction is there.

> Every cent you "save" is diluted when the Federal Reserve decides to print up a trillion or two.

And yet, disregarding exceptional circumstances in world history, it's generally stable. I can buy bread for roughly the same amount of dollars I bought it for last year.

> You can't "print up" a few trillion Bitcoins. You can't add more. You can't magically make them go away (unless of course your throw away your hard drive with the wallet data on it...).

You can do plenty other funny things if you have equivalent amount of power.

> And unlike any other type of currency, where some shady deal can take place and there's absolutely no record of it... there's a ledger of every single transaction ever made on the Bitcoin network. You may not know who that address belongs to, but the transaction is there.

Sure. But instead, you can just... give someone the key to your address. Roughly equivalent to how shady deals happen with fiat - you give someone a briefcase full of cash.

All of that is irrelevant to the point here, though: the point is that if you tried to imagine an evil mastermind hell-bent on accelerating climate change, Bitcoin is what they would come up with - an engine of unlimited energy waste, fueled by naivety and unadulterated greed.

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize“

Yeah, but why is the list growing?

If you respond to a power grab by competing over who can surrender the fastest, what do you expect to happen?

When one lowers existing barriers to global trade, new barriers become enacted.

The Law of Conservation of Barriers.

Presumably the only effect this will have is that ideologically inclined netizens will now start seeding it on your nearest public torrent tracker instead. While not ideal, I’m happy we still have a free enough internet that these types of rebellions are possible, regardless of what you may think of the legal implications thereof.

There's nothing to stop the Biden administration from buying this and putting it in the public domain. That would be poetic justice.

I watched the movie. It highlighted to me how over the top the effort was, when I previously did not appreciate how exotic and ridiculous the killing actually was. No wonder the Saudis did not like this movie.

Netflix, the streaming service that mainstreamed child sexual exploitation, is now shy of controversy.

From IMDB's content advisory on "Cuties": "Frequent scenes of 11-year-old girls dancing lewdly where the camera pans in and zooms in on the children's buttocks and midsections (both still in skin-tight clothes) Close up shots of the girls dancing with their leg spread above their head while camera focus on crotch area. These views are fairly frequent, but brief."

I've seen "Cuties" without prior knowledge of the controversy. It is a good movie that actually denounces indoctrination (moral/religious or consumerist/sexual) of young girls. It is also a very French movie, which codes may not be familiar to American public. Some scenes are ambiguous, reflecting both superficial joy and ethical uneasiness. As part of the whole story they balance out but taken out of context these images will look plain wrong; Netflix mistake was to use those scenes as part the movie's trailer.

The actresses in Mignonnes aren't young-looking adults. They're actually children.

The controversy exists (yes, even in France,) because it was unnecessary for Doucoure to sexualize children in order to decry the sexualization of children.

How do you show how bad something is without showing the thing?

Children are sexualized by the constant messaging they receive from media and advertising. Instead of getting upset about a movie that demonstrates the problem, maybe we should address the problem.

> How do you show how bad something is without showing the thing?

Ordinarily, we'd simulate it. No one is actually killed in the production of a war film.

But when the actresses themselves are children, it's not a simulation.

> No one is actually killed in the production of a war film.

Actually... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident

You could put a similar content warning on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Miss_Sunshine, but it'd entirely miss the point of the film.

There's "controversy that is mostly a Twitter/arts critique outrage" that won't cost you much business, and there's "controversy that can lead entire countries from blocking you out".

Most people will never hear about, much less react upon, the "Cuties" issue, so the business risk was relatively low.

What unmitigated cowardice! If a company chooses to offend only when there's little risk to the bottom line, they're not a brave cultural vanguard. They're the establishment hiding under an "edgy" patina.

Have any of these companies ever claimed to be edgy though? I feel like this is par for the course with all American businesses.

Do you mean to tell me that the "Praise Satan!" streaming service isn't desperately trying to be edgy?

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/11/the-chilling-ad...

Somewhere in Ankara, a not-so-slightly fascist is giggling hard.

To have the west's narrative-forming-class believe the fairy tale of Kashoggi as a fighter for free speech is quite an achievement, as the only reason Kashoggi got to be a politically critical journalist in Saudi-Arabia was that he was an upper class guy, heir to millions of USDs - and like many in this socio-economic group a big fan / member of the Muslim Brotherhood (as means to overthrow the only class that sits on top of them).

Yeah, just an ordinary freedom fighter who is best buddies with Erdogan. Right...

Ah, so he believed something questionable. He clearly deserved to be cut up with bone saws.

So is this the narrative that is being pushed by pro-MBS astroturfers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com