
Saudi Money Fuels the Tech Industry. It’s Time to Ask Why - buttcoinslol
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/technology/unsavory-sources-money-fueling-tech.html
======
megaman22
The tech industry has, historically and in aggregate, had pretty solid rates
of returns. If I was sitting on a dwindling store of natural resources as my
primary store of wealth, I would probably want to try to diversify that wealth
into other areas and grow that wealth aggressively while my potentially
limited income source is still highly profitable.

I'm not sure that more nefarious aims need to be posited than simple avarice.

~~~
conanbatt
I don't get the reasoning to be against it. If your goal is "global
liberation", taking money from oppressive regimes its a pretty darn fast way
to do it. You make the oppressors pay for the future liberation. We should
applaud if thats whats happening.

~~~
remarkEon
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.

~~~
conanbatt
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?

~~~
remarkEon
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.

~~~
conanbatt
"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.

------
brighteyes
There is something to this argument, but it's ruined.

The author and many others don't like Saudi Arabia and Russia. That's the main
reason for advocating a boycott of their investment money, because while the
author mentions the poor human rights records of those two countries as the
reason, there are plenty of other countries with such records. The main
example of which is China, which is of course not mentioned.

The US itself has a poor human rights record on many things, and especially
given our current president, had the author been writing from any other
country, the US might have been on the list of countries whose money should
not be accepted.

I'm not saying the US is as bad as China and Russia and Saudi Arabia. I'm not
even saying China is as bad as Russia and Saudi Arabia. I am saying that if
you care deeply about this, you should mention more than the easiest targets,
if only to avoid the appearance of bias.

The bias also shows itself by considering an entire country as a single
entity, when the author says we should not accept Russian investors' money. To
justify it, the author says that if a Russian investor has ties to Kremlin-
backed companies, they should be off limits. But that probably encompasses a
large number of Russian investors. Same as the group of investors with ties to
companies funded by US government money (DARPA, NSA, CIA, etc.).

~~~
sho
I kind of agree with you, but I think you muddy your argument by getting into
the weeds somewhat. For me this whole thing is pretty simple - where do you
draw your line?

I mean, off the top of my head here's a rough list, in my extremely rough
estimation, of human rights offenders from bad to good:

    
    
      badness country
      100%    DPRK
      90%     Saudi Arabia
      80%     Dubai
      70%     Russia
      60%     China
      50%     USA
      40%     India
      30%     Japan
      20%     Australia
      10%     Norway
      0%      Antarctica
    

So where do _you_ draw your line?

Stating "My line is 65% bad or less" is a reasonable argument.

~~~
manfredo
And how do we make countries high up on that list go down?

Economic isolationism surely isn't the answer - seeing as North Korea is #1 on
that list. Notice that the countries lowest on your list of badness have the
closest ties to Western countries (with the exception of Antarctica). Saudi
Arabia becoming more closely tied economically to Western countries is an
opportunity to lessen its "badness" on your scale. Recent developments, like
allowing women to drive and encouraging more women to work are still
ridiculously backwards by the standards of the Western world, but represent
steps in the right direction

~~~
fnl
Your assumption is that economic cooperation makes "evil" countries become
more like the "good" countries they cooperate with. I don't think that holds
true. Just take China and Russia, who have very strong economic ties with
almost all of the world. Human rights in Russia certainly are not getting any
better, and I doubt they are in China. In fact, taking recent relevations into
account, those ties might just as much be corrupting the "good" countries, and
not (just) working the way you assume they are.

~~~
manfredo
While these countries are definitely more oppressive and have less human
rights than much of the Western world, do you really think that they've
haven't gotten better in that regard with greater connections to the West? I
don't think many would agree that these countries had better human rights and
living conditions a couple decades ago.

As others have pointed out international pressure was instrumental in
dismantling Apartheid in South Africa. That is one clear example.

~~~
fnl
As said, with Putin, I think things have only gotten worse. And China seems to
be settling on a benevolent dictator, too, these days. So at least recently, I
don't think things are getting any better in those two countries.

------
gozur88
This article is really, really light on reasons why you _wouldn 't_ take Saudi
money. Is he really suggesting we reject money from a citizen of any country
that's been "criticized for its human rights record"? Would there be any money
left?

~~~
erikb
If you did that, you couldn't take US money either. Especially now that we've
seen Trump and his friends, does anybody really consider them better than any
other powerhungry folks?

~~~
PeachPlum
Can you show me the list of President Trump's human rights abuses ?

~~~
jernfrost
Fortunatly for the US there are checks and balances hindering Trump from doing
most of the evil he wants to. Don’t be naive and think he would be nice if he
had dictatorial powers.

He has already publicly complained that he can’t use the FBI for whatever he
wants to, like going after his political opponents.

~~~
jochung
Just imagine if the US had secret prisons, policies of torture, autonomous
killing machines, an unaccountable surveillance apparatus, and worst of all, a
government that outright lied about some of these things without consequence
during a presidency awarded a Nobel Peace prize.

amirite

------
Apocryphon
If the CIA, Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia all fund startups, would the
conflicting interests then cancel each other out?

~~~
Alex3917
Yes, and this is largely the point. The reason foreign governments invest in
U.S. tech is because they see it as a path to good relations with the U.S.
government. Or at least good enough to avoid getting bombed and having their
assets frozen. It's not about making money, it's about reducing geopolitical
risk. If these countries wanted to make money then they'd just sell weapons,
traffic drugs, build stuff with slave labor, etc., all of which are a lot more
profitable than workplace smoothie delivery or whatever.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
That isnt the main reason. They do it to make money, or at least protect the
money they have without overheating their own economy. The Chinese don’t buy
treasuries to make friendly with the USA, they do it because they don’t have
any better options to deal with their trade surpluses. There is just nowhere
else liquid enough to park a few hundred billion as needed.

Why they fund startups is even more self interested, they really do want to
make money, and believe it or not, it is much easier and profitable to do that
through investing then to become a rogue state.

------
CalChris
_Why_ seems pretty obvious. Instead of asking _why_ , it would be better to
ask _how_. I don't know of any Saudi VC firms on Sand Hill Road. But then
there's a ton of Saudi money out there. Softbank just opened a Saudi fund with
$93B.

[http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/21/technology/saudi-softbank-
te...](http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/21/technology/saudi-softbank-tech-fund-
target/index.html)

KSA investors seem to be acting as extremely large limited partners which
makes a lot of investment sense for them.

Dunno if CFIUS can look at this but isn't that what they're there for?

------
startupdiscuss
Doesn't it matter which Saudi's money it is?

I mean shouldn't a distinction be made between the government, the zealots,
private investors, citizens and so on?

~~~
rtpg
>The money from regimes that have been criticized for their human rights
records — from Saudi Arabia’s government in particular, which has plans to
funnel potentially hundreds of billions of dollars into tech companies through
its state-controlled Public Investment Fund

Lots of sovereign wealth fund cash, also people within the monarchy with money
to throw around.

~~~
rorykoehler
>The money from regimes that have been criticized for their human rights
records

TBF the US well and truly falls into that category too.

~~~
rtpg
classic whatabout-ism that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and more importantly
doesn't matter.

"America is also bad!" would not be a defense to selling chemical weapons to
Hussein. It's not a defense to helping build the Great Firewall. Your actions'
consequences are your fault.

~~~
rorykoehler
It's not whatabout-ism. The question was why is Saudi money accepted. Human-
rights violations is totally irrelevant. If it were a leading concern then
companies couldn't accept American money either. SpaceX basically couldn't
exist. Humans rights is about political power nothing else. Saudis are already
dancing to the USA's tune so the US doesn't roll out the human rights and
democracy trope. Instead they trade.

~~~
mseebach
Yes it's whataboutism. Human rights violations aren't binary and the Saudi
variety is in a different class entirely from the US.

~~~
rorykoehler
>different class entirely from the US

Could you elaborate how you came to this conclusion?

------
richardknop
This article is quite hypocritical. If you are going to single out Saudi money
as immoral or let's say unethical, you have to apply the same meter to all
countries. And this isn't just Russia which is currently being sanctioned hard
but also notably China or some other ME and African countries.

Now, if you want to know my personal opinion, I am very critical of Saudi
Arabia and if Russia and Iran are treated as enemies and sanctioned I think
the treatment of SA should be the same.

------
abalashov
The developed world already transfers gargantuan sums of wealth to the Saudis
for energy supplies, and has done so for many decades. What exactly is the
moral distinction here? From a 50,000 ft view, it seems that the social
bargain we have with the Saudis is what it is, and the particular modes of
capital flow aren't the critical issue.

If nothing else, massive inputs of fossil fuels are required to sustain the
Valley tech economy, too, in all kinds of direct and indirect ways. Tech has
been helping make the oil autocracies rich since forever.

------
aptidude187
Talking about human rights violations but not even mentioning Israel? This is
really some agenda driven piece, don‘t insult the reader‘s intelligence.

~~~
jernfrost
I disagree. The human rights abuses of Israel are if anything over reported.
How often do you e.g. hear about Israeli abuses vs Sri Lanken, Indonesian etc?

No country had gotten as many UN resolutions or attempts of it against itself
despite in the grand scheme of things they don’t make the top 10. Typically
these resolutions are filed by arab countries with far worse humanitarian
record.

------
mabbo
Because it's a good investment, and Saudi Arabia is desperate to diversify
their money before all the oil dries up.

Why is this complicated?

~~~
aaron-lebo
The question is not why would the Saudis want to invest, it's why an industry
that always talks about how progressive and innovative it is is so happy to
compromise those values.

 _This presents a conundrum. Tech companies are fond of pseudo-revolutionary
mission statements that extol the virtues of diversity, tolerance, freedom of
expression and other progressive ideals. They have argued that their
technologies are part of a force for global liberation — that forging more
open communication and economic productivity through technology will loosen
the grip of tyrannies across the globe. For much of the last year, Silicon
Valley has also promised a revolution in its own culture, with large and small
companies alike vowing to become more inclusive of women and minorities._

To outsiders it looks fake, hypocritical, and a little immoral. $300 million
is nice, but why sell your soul for it?

~~~
virmundi
I think the answer is that Silicon Valley is all those things. They are caught
up in a moral panic. Look at their history: pro women's right's publically,
but sexist privately; anti-school choice for the average person, but sends
their kids to private school ; reject new water pipeline for farmers because
piped water over long distance is unnatural; keeps existing water rights to
their cities. Silicon Valley is not and probably never has been virtuous ; it
has often virtue signaled.

------
umeshunni
Saudi Oil Fuels the NYT's vehicle. It's time to Ask Why?

~~~
zjaffee
One of the NYTimes largest investor is carlos slim who made his money in not
the most ethical ways.

------
thisisit
Companies, except Twitter and Kingdom Holdings, take money from Softbank's
Vision Fund. This fund incidentally has a lot of backing from the Saudis.
Softank is a famous name in the VC and tech circle.

So, I am wondering how many tech startups do a reverse due diligence on the
companies offering them money? Is that a normal expected practice?

------
ProfessorLayton
Similar questions can be asked about our 401Ks/pensions. Our retirements
partially ride on the backs of companies that have done no-so-great things to
society.

~~~
psergeant
Plenty of “green” and “social” funds if you’re worried about that, and I note
that sovereign wealth funds and public sector pension funds do indeed concern
themselves with questions like this

------
kregasaurusrex
It's worth noting that the larger companies mentioned like Uber, Slack, and
Twitter which received money from the Vision Fund occurred in their later
respective funding rounds, often shortly before going into an IPO or full-on
acquisition by a publicly traded company. My guess would be that this fund is
targeting modest returns while not wanting to incur the both the risk
associated with a company in its earlier funding rounds, and a guaranteed path
towards liquidity if the fund managers desire to exit. I see this purely as an
investment vehicle since investments at these stages aren't expected to
provide the investors with significant numbers of voting shares.

------
omarforgotpwd
I think you could argue that it is actually inhumane to deny certain people
the right to investment gains from american companies. Sure you may not like
the Saudi Arabian government but ultimately they are trying to create a plan
to secure the future of real people who are not all evil, though it may look
that way from our cultural vantage point. The Saudis haven’t tended to try and
influence their investments, they are mostly a silent investor so far. So if
they are not doing anything evil and providing additional liquidity and demand
to American capital markets, why go after them or the tech companies that sell
them shares?

~~~
forapurpose
> ultimately they are trying to create a plan to secure the future of real
> people

I think you have a point in general, but let's not take the proclamations at
face value.

> The Saudis haven’t tended to try and influence their investments, they are
> mostly a silent investor so far

Do we know this somehow? Beyond a doubt, if they have power they will use it.

~~~
omarforgotpwd
> Do we know this somehow? Beyond a doubt, if they have power they will use
> it. I remember reading this somewhere, but I can't find a source. It is
> conceivable they may choose to be more "activist" with their holdings in the
> future, but thus far I can't think of any examples of them using their
> holdings to exert influence over the company's they invested in. Certainly
> they must be cognizant of the fact that doing so at this time would make
> most companies reluctant to accept their investment.

~~~
forapurpose
> I can't think of any examples of them using their holdings to exert
> influence over the company's they invested in

How would you know? Such things are rarely disclosed; both parties prefer to
keep them confidential.

> they must be cognizant of the fact that doing so at this time would make
> most companies reluctant to accept their investment

Many companies make deals like that all the time. Look at the influence of
China in Hollywood:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15641483](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15641483)

------
nextstep
Israel is much more closely tied to the US tech industry and is also a
flagrant abuser of human rights yet this article ignores this obvious
comparison?

------
prestonpesek
Maybe we should ask how human rights abuses plan to persist if their
proponents are funding new platforms of self expression and better flows of
information that offer tremendous empowerment for the average person to learn
about and speak out against such injustices. This seems a poor strategy if the
goal is to keep the people ignorant and subject to the ancient stupidity of
religious dogma.

~~~
Mediterraneo10
I daresay you are a few years behind. Social networking hasn’t proven to be
quite the platform for self-expression and resistance to oppression that it
may have seemed a decade ago. A number of authoritarian states now have deep
social network penetration, but they have managed to neuter political
criticism. Requiring that one use one's real name and identifiable details
(like a mobile phone number; in many countries you have to show your ID to buy
a SIM card) helps ensure an atmosphere of self-censorship, where people don’t
air strident views too much because they worry about the consequences.

> the goal is to keep the people ignorant and subject to the ancient stupidity
> of religious dogma

The present wave of fundamentalist Orthodoxy in Russia (demanding a ban on
screenings of the film _Mathilda_ , attacking other arts figures or those who
would try to shield property from Church repossession, etc.) is actually
mobilized in large part through social-networking platforms.

------
bitL
Saudis are smart to invest in tech when future of oil is questionable. That's
despite the game of thrones "fun" going on there right now. And tech despite
its "progressive" PR doesn't care about source of money anyway; purity is for
tech plebs, not for rulers.

~~~
stcredzero
_despite the game of thrones "fun" going on there right now_

That's simultaneously a reference to George R. R. Martin and Toys for Bob!

------
KKKKkkkk1
I would expect an article with that kind of title to be published in the Op-Ed
section of the New York Times, not the technology section. I'm wondering
whether this might be motivated by the Times's financial interests.

------
mastazi
> By accepting these investments, tech companies get to revel in the branding
> glory of global good while taking billions from a government that stands
> against many of those goals

It seems to me that all (or at least almost all) of the companies cited in the
article are now (as of Nov 2017) public companies, how are they supposed to
not accept investments? On the one hand I understand the criticism because
many of those investments came before those companies went public (e.g. the
one, cited in the article, that Twitter took in 2011) but what would be the
proposed action now? The article seemed to me a bit simplistic.

------
tryingagainbro
Saudi Oil Fuels Our cars and Industry. It’s Time to Ask Why.

At least we're getting some of the money back in investment.

But yeah, a major investor, especially in hard times can have clout and can
influence a lot of things. With one suggestion...

------
prestonpesek
If humanity wants to improve the net balance of human rights, what better way
than to reallocate available financial capital away from regimes that
subscribe to undesirable religious dogma, and toward a new generation of
leaders who believe in progress through the erosion of ignorance, by creating
platforms of empowerment and enlightenment by means of a freer flow of
information, via digital channels that transcend obsolete political and
cultural borders. If the Saudi agenda is to propagate Islam, then the internet
is a terrible thing to invest in.

------
ryanx435
They bought Twitter specifically because of twiiters role in the Arab spring
so they could prevent the revolutionary fever spread to Saudi Arabia.

It worked.

~~~
yters
This is a more interesting angle than merely looking for ROI. The power of
social media to bring about unrest is definitely an incentive for regimes to
control said social media. OTOH, we are now getting decentralized social media
such as Mastodon.

------
zabana
Well, Saudi money comes from oil revenue, which is measured in US dollars. So
really Saudi Arabia is just putting that money back into your pockets, so why
all the hate ? (And please if you could step down from your high arrogant
western horse for one moment and avoid the old "yeah but women can't drive"
rhetoric, that would be much appreciated).

------
lend000
Sensational pseudo-journalism making an issue out of nothing. There will
rarely be a company that has the luxury to turn down funding on some misplaced
moral high ground. Should we enact an embargo? Sanctions always work, right?
Or at least they make the poorest inhabitants of the country suffer (see NK,
Cuba, Yemen).

------
Santosh83
Saudi oil fuels most of the world for that matter. Maybe we should all be
asking ourselves questions about how we live?

------
odiroot
Why now, New York Times? Just after Saudis started to clean their house.

What's your point? This article cannot be accidental.

~~~
molmalo
My best guess, is that Saudi Arabia has been pushing very hard against Qatar
lately, who has enormous amounts of capital and influence in media through
it's advertisement contracts (via lots of companies and holdings directly or
virtually controlled by them)...

Another option, the recent detention of Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal (same
reason, money and influence over media).

------
StanislavPetrov
No, its time to stop pretending that the "tech industry" is some sort of
champion of freedom and goodness. There is nothing inherently good about tech
or the tech industry. Governed properly, platforms and services like Twitter
and Google can be valuable tools in creating and sustaining a free and open
society. Nothing about their behavior suggests this is the case. Virtually
every tech company has crumbled without much hesitation when put under
pressure from authoritarian governments from China to the United States. Not
only are these tech platforms quick to acquiesce to the requests(and threats)
from governments, but they have proven just as willing to engage in shady and
subversive practices to support their business model (and those of their
advertisers and clients).

~~~
forapurpose
More concretely, the tech industry does good if and only if people reading
this (and others like them) do good, including by advocating for good to their
peers, employers, etc. There is nothing inherently good about the industry, or
about you and me.

How to do it is complicated. If people like the Saudis offer money, consider
the consequences. Consider your power to say 'no' to the influence they may
wish to wield and how much you are legitimizing them by association.

As an example, Chinese censors now influence Hollywood. The Chinese government
threatens to deny their market to those who don't cooperate, and so Americans
and the world see films that are effectively censored, to a degree, by the
Chinese government. For example, in the 1990s Disney made the film Kundun,
about the Dalai Lama. China penalized Disney heavily in the domestic market.

 _In October 1998, [Disney head Michael] Mr. Eisner met Zhu Rongji, who had
just been named prime minister, at China’s leadership compound in Beijing. Mr.
Eisner apologized for “Kundun,” calling it a “stupid mistake,” according to a
transcript of the meeting.

“This film was a form of insult to our friends, but other than journalists,
very few people in the world ever saw it,” Mr. Eisner said during the meeting.
(“Kundun” bombed, taking in just $5.7 million against a production budget of
about $30 million.)

Mr. Eisner said the company had learned a lesson._

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/business/international/ch...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/business/international/china-
disney.html)

Seen many films critical of China lately?

------
arkh
The NY Times has a beef against the tech industry. It's time to ask why.

------
baliansa
Maybe because the crown prince is a 32 year old who grew up seeing bill gates
as an idol? Maybe this is because they want to move away from oil by exiting
Aramco and moving their money to VCs?

------
nautilus12
Aside from simply diversifying their portfolio are there any prominant deep
state theories as to why Saudi Arabia would want to prop up tech? For example,
one such theory could be that Apple is being funded by Saudi Arabia to
specifically build addictive technologies so the American public is enmeshed
in confusing contradictory media sources rendering the US public largely
ineffective and allowing them a secret backdoor to collect data on the
American public.

~~~
bcraven
What a hilariously convoluted plan!

Here's an easier one- oil is running out so the Kingdom needs to diversify.
Tech provides investment and job opportunities.

~~~
nautilus12
This was just an example

------
denisehilton
They are still trying to destroy their economy by imposing meaningless taxes
for expats. Their strategy is going to fail.

------
macspoofing
Because Saudis have a ton of oil-money that they want/need to park somewhere?

------
nitwit005
If you're going to call out something in particular, you'd think it'd be the
weapons deals instead of investments in Twitter, Uber and so on. Feels like
this might have been slanted this way just so they'd have something to put in
the "Technology" category on the website.

------
sadlyNess
Is it fair/unfair to chalk this down to plain objectivism? That the source of
money isnt that important as long as it gives me a chance to Change The
World™..?

~~~
ringaroundthetx
You're right, it doesn't matter. Thirty years ago it didn't matter, there was
no such thing as criminalizing the source of money before then. This is a fake
stigma, you don't have to rationalize it either.

Unparalleled economic growth continued to happen because it didn't matter to
anyone of importance and status.

Whatever fake stigmas were shoved down the throats of the morally subscribed
underclass only serve to keep them squabbling and maintaining the social and
economic order which has always been here.

------
NumberCruncher
Because money does not stink.

------
R_haterade
Why this story, and why right now?

Think!

------
severian1778
because americans are too cheap to invest?

------
ringaroundthetx
So taking money from a government is now "losing your moral compass"

OKAY. Yes, keep trying to tell us what to think that worked out SOOOO well
last year.

------
diogenescynic
Same reason they invest in Fox News—aim the weapon at your enemy, like Iran.
It’s no coincidence the media is always screaming about Iran, who is actually
more moderate than our supposed ally Saudi Arabia. It’s a way to buy
themselves a free pass from criticism.

~~~
SubiculumCode
Iran may be moderate, but they are also aligned with Russia. I'd like Iran to
align with the West, but too many sides are in their trenches.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "Iran may be moderate, but they are also aligned with Russia."

Why is that a problem? The Cold War is over. The Russian influence on the
world stage is not what it once was (China has definitely superseded it), and
it's a capitalist society so their interests are mostly aligned with
capitalist societies elsewhere.

~~~
forapurpose
> [Russia is] a capitalist society so their interests are mostly aligned with
> capitalist societies elsewhere.

Clearly their interests are not aligned with most capitalist societies,
including the ones in Europe, East Asia, and the U.S. Russia overtly calls
these nations their enemies, those nations see Russia as a threat, and Russia
regularly threatens them militarily and interferes in their domestic politics
at an extreme level (short of war).

~~~
ZenoArrow
Which countries in East Asia are you referring to?

As for the EU, the 'enemy' status is over a battle for control of Ukraine, and
the trade sanctions that happened as a result of Russian invading Ukraine to
stop Ukraine becoming a member of the EU. More detail about trade sanctions:

[https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/eu-
sa...](https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/eu-sanctions-
against-russia-over-ukraine-crisis_en)

The US has also imposed trade sanctions for similar reasons:

[https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/ukrainerussia/](https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/ukrainerussia/)

In my opinion Russia is in the wrong here, I'm just pointing out the reason
behind that 'enemy' status. In countries that conduct business with Russia,
that enemy status is far less pronounced.

~~~
forapurpose
> As for the EU, the 'enemy' status is over a battle for control of Ukraine

Ukraine is a continuation of and part of a much larger struggle. Russia is
interfering in European countries' elections and domestic politics; they also
annexed, unofficially, part of Georgia; they are pushing countries to abandon
or not join the EU; they are working against European countries in other
regions, including in the Mideast; they are trying to divide NATO by building
an alliance with Turkey ...

------
erikb
Honestly, if someone offers you 300 million plus would you say no, because
this someone belongs to a different culture group? The discussion as well as
the headline of the article seems quite strange. I mean you want a free market
or not. If you want, then all these examples should make you proud not
worried.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
So, not respecting human rights is a cultural difference we should accept?

And if I want free markets, and I notice that free markets lead to people
being murdered, then I should be proud when people do get murdered? Otherwise
I would necessarily have to reject free markets? Or what exactly is your
point?

~~~
erikb
No what is your point.

(a) Why does paying $300mio to Twitter results in people getting killed?

(b) Why do you think your government/companies/people would do better?

(c) What you should be proud of if you like free markets is that everybody
with money and interest in a company can put their money in that company. In a
non-free market like China you are way more limited with foreign investments.

(d) "Free" means everybody can do what they want. If you want to limit what
people are doing you are not talking free markets. That's in fact a reasonable
argument from the Socialist spectrum. Don't allow people to run around freely,
harming themselves and each other. One really has to decide what one likes in
that spectrum. Each direction has their own pros and cons.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> (a) Why does paying $300mio to Twitter results in people getting killed?

Who claimed it did?

> (b) Why do you think your government/companies/people would do better?

What makes you think I think that?

> (c) What you should be proud of if you like free markets is that everybody
> with money and interest in a company can put their money in that company. In
> a non-free market like China you are way more limited with foreign
> investments.

Why should I like free markets as a primary value?

> (d) "Free" means everybody can do what they want. If you want to limit what
> people are doing you are not talking free markets. That's in fact a
> reasonable argument from the Socialist spectrum. Don't allow people to run
> around freely, harming themselves and each other. One really has to decide
> what one likes in that spectrum. Each direction has their own pros and cons.

If you want to limit my ability to erect a government that limits what you can
do, then we are not talking freedom. Agree?

