Saudi woman given 34-year prison sentence for using Twitter | Hacker News Reader

Saudi woman given 34-year prison sentence for using Twitter

theguardian.com

76 pointscarlsborg26 comments

Unlike some of the failed states in the area, Saudi Arabia is a legitimate threat to the West. All the random abuse of their citizens is countered by a sportswashing campaign that includes Formula 1 races and boxing events to name a few. They are also investing heavily in afforestation and renewable energy, which will reduce their dependence on oil soon.

Resource gathering (oil, minerals, etc) only requires a few experts and many slaves to create wealth. A dictatorship works well in such a situation.

Green energy and other technology intensive industries require dynamic societies with well educated populations. Authoritarian regimes fail in this regard, industries die fast and wealth disappears.

I don't see how that conclusion follows.

Authoritarian regimes are designed top-down that limits the complexity of society and stifles innovation. Authoritarian regimes also fear an educated population further diminishing society value. A social democracy is in the opposite side of the spectrum, it is created bottom-up where citizens needs shape the government allowing for a richer more educated population.

Complex societies can and will produce better technology and creativity than simpler ones. So, authoritarian societies need an easy way to get money or they will be outcompeted by more open ones.

tldr;

Authoritarian -> simple society. Oil -> can be gathered by simple societies.

Social democracy -> complex society -> high-tech.

this simple/complex thing isn't actually a spectrum in anything but an over-simplified view.

In reality, many technical and mathematical advances have come out of countries that aren't democracies.

It would be a mistake to think Russia doesn't have highly advanced technical capabilities, for example. It successfully developed nuclear weapons before many democratic societies could have.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32489998

Because of their strategic importance they don't just get away with murdering journalists on foreign ground, spying on politicians and activists all over the world (including US citizens), spying on US companies (as the current article mentions), and all the acts of terror they committed in their region, or even supported against the US. They are actively supported as a prized ally to the West.

As long as they have the billions of dollars to spend buying arms from the West, or selling oil, and any other business they may do together, and any other strategic role SA fulfills now, they will get away with anything.

And let's not kid ourselves. It's not like countries in the West don't imprison without any due process or even torture when it suits them. People spent decades imprisoned and tortured just for having the wrong name. So expecting even some simulated indignation from some of these civilized countries may just be setting yourself up for disappointment. They're actively supporting SA and explicitly some of their actions as a matter of public record.

SA is an ally to the Western powers, not a threat. The US government's top priority on Sept 2001 (when a group of Saudi royal family members killed thousands of US people on territory) was protecting the (oil man) President's friends (oil company colleagues) in the Saudi monarchy.

It's billionaires (in SA, USA, and China (where the Parliament is full of billionaires) vs everyone, not East vs West.

While I find this really awful, it should be clear to everybody, and especially to her, that this is how those dictatorships work.

These are extremly wealthy shitholes who give nothing about democratic principles or human life at all.

You either play by their rules or you better don't set your foot on their land.

Yes, and it’ll unfortunately continue that way for a long time.

The world has shown ruthless dictator Mohammed Bin Salman that he can murder foreign dissidents and get away with minor consequences, such as pulling a few investments from the country.

The dude even got a visit and fist bump from the US President afterward…so I doubt he’ll care much about unleashing his power on more critics.

Its not so easy. By routing economic power (aka oil or trade) there, you support these shitholes and the spreading of there ideologies and pathologies.

Free trade furthers the ruthless more then the free.

Is it the least bad option, though?

I'm no expert but I think the argument goes that by allowing free trade we create links between societies, as well as offering more opportunities for putting political pressure for change (even if change is far slower than the people suffering under those regimes deserve) vs the alternative of North Korea style alienation?

Is there a better option? The US+allies could kill those authoritarian leaders, invade those countries, "liberate" the people, etc etc but that doesn't exactly have a great track record for improving the countries invaded...

> Free trade furthers the ruthless more then the free.

Moral obligations are just standing in the way, yes.

It's true especially in social media for them it's a show of power that I can do this.

They pick these victims from time to time to remind their power and suppress other people.

Self-censorship is extremely harmful. When people fears physical harm when expressing themselves many criticisms go unsaid.

Yea, and this is true for even countries which don't look like dictatorships like Thailand. Be careful about setting foot in those places after criticizing (even mildly) people leading them.

> even countries which don't look like dictatorships like Thailand

Isn't Thailand a straight-up military dictatorship?

Yeah but you wouldn't know it from the volume of travel vlogging that takes place there. Wouldn't be surprised if it's supported by the junta.

Also from The Guardian, 10 years ago: "Student jailed for racist Fabrice Muamba tweets" [1], only that time it happened in the UK and the sentence was for 56 days.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fa...

This article says she tweeted and it is about Twitter who have taken much Saudi investment, but the punishment is about what she said which is construed as seditious. This is about control of speech, not a tweet and not Twitter or its investors.

Twitter is all about controlling speech.

There was a documentary about women prisons. It's hell on the earth.

Maybe she could appeal to UN Women’s Rights Commission, or UN Commission on the Status of Women.

The UK arrests people for re-Tweets [1]

So what's the point here?

If the UK arrests people for re-Tweeted memes, how long should you get for terrorist re-Tweets?

How about the Guardian cleans up the UK first and mentions the UK also does this.

[1] https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-commu...

The man was "arrested" and it may have been a baseless arrest and it has not reach a court. The Saudi woman has been sentenced by a judge to 34 years prison term. Both events are not even close.

The point is that this is egregious violation of human rights, something I think you would agree with given the issue you take with the the UK, whose problems are significantly less egregious by comparison.

If you have an ax to grind with the Guardian or the UK, bring it up in threads where that is the topic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com