Why should we focus exclusively on low level henchmen when there's a huge Saudi influence on Twitter like that one?
Why should we believe that owning the single largest stake--one even larger than the Jack's--isn't relevant when discussing how they influence Twitter to get what they want?
Well to start the actual information in the story is about the folks involved... and they got all that done without any overarching conspiracy from ownership.
So is the risk here some unproven ownership influence, or the something any given dude can just go and do if he can get a job?
I think that's a very strong claim. What's your evidence for it?
I'm not saying the two things are related. But I'm happy to say that if I wanted to unduly influence a company, buying a significant part of it would be one of the things I'd look at.
You made a positive claim that the two had nothing to do with one another. The kind of evidence that could prove that might include logs of conversations between Twitter execs and reps of Saudi investors.
I agree that nothing has come to light demonstrating that their was behind-the-scenes influence in aid of this. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Sure. Nothing at all.
Except that Prince Walid surrendered his investment to the same people who ran moles at Twitter.
Nothing to see here.
It's just a coincidence.
Move along.
The story likely plays out just the same regardless...
I get what you're saying but the whole "it's a conspiracy here is some unrelated thing I can't connect but I'm suspicious" thing is such an easy to do, the internet is full of it... I don't think it adds anything, or is even accurate.
And let's say somehow that thing with the investment doesn't happen.... I don't think that changes the story or the lessons from it.
They didn't really need the investment to plant the spies. He just applied for a job and got it. Any foreign spy can do the same and nothing will change.
This seems to me like focusing on the trees instead of the forest. I would think that when discussing Saudi control over a company, we might be interested in more than just some low-level henchmen, but maybe the Saudi prince who owns a third of the company.
To hear some other people talk, this is "conspiracy" territory now. But c'mon, we're supposed to believe that some nobody henchmen are solely responsible for this and ignore the fact that the Saudis own a third of the company.
