Meta and Snapchat blocking Saudi dissidents’ accounts
Major U.S. social media platforms Meta and Snapchat have blocked the accounts of Saudi Arabian dissidents following orders from the Saudi government. The move has sparked criticism from human rights groups and raised questions about the role of tech companies in facilitating state repression.
In a move that has drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates, Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, along with Snapchat, have blocked the accounts of several Saudi Arabian dissidents after receiving requests from Saudi authorities. The action effectively removes the profiles from view within Saudi Arabia, preventing the dissidents’ content from reaching audiences in the kingdom.
What Happened
At the end of April, Meta confirmed that it had blocked at least seven accounts, including those of U.S. activist Abdullah Alaoudh and Canadian‑British activist Omar Abdulaziz, who had worked closely with journalist Jamal Khashoggi before the 2018 murder. The company’s public transparency centre lists 144 Instagram accounts, Facebook pages and profiles that Saudi officials requested restrictions on, and shows that 108 items were actually blocked. Snapchat has reportedly slowed or removed accounts in Saudi Arabia, including Abdulaziz’s, without notifying the owners. Meanwhile, X (formerly Twitter) sent letters to two users, informing them that Saudi authorities had claimed their accounts violated local laws. X said it had not yet taken action and urged users to delete the content or seek legal advice.
Background on the Dissidents
Abdullah Alaoudh is a U.S.‑based activist and senior policy adviser for the American Committee for Middle East Rights (ACMER). He has been a vocal critic of Saudi human rights abuses and has faced multiple attempts to silence his voice online. Omar Abdulaziz, a Canadian‑British activist, has worked with human rights groups and was closely associated with Jamal Khashoggi’s investigative journalism before the journalist’s murder by Saudi agents. Both activists have been targeted by Saudi authorities for their outspoken criticism of the regime.
Other affected accounts belong to individuals linked to the London‑based human rights organization ALQST, including its founder Yahya Assiri. Dr. Maryam Aldossari, a board member of ALQST, has highlighted how the requests from Saudi Arabia are not neutral legal processes but rather tools of authoritarian censorship.
Meta’s Response and Policy
Meta’s statement to the Guardian explains that when content is reported as violating local law but not the company’s community standards, it may restrict availability in the country where the claim is made. The company typically informs users that their content is blocked due to a local legal requirement or a government request. Meta’s transparency centre provides evidence that Saudi officials contacted the company and requested restrictions on 144 accounts and profiles during April.
Meta has not publicly responded to accusations that it is “doing Saudi Arabia’s dirty work.” The company’s policy emphasizes that it will act only when a request is made by a government and that it will inform users of the source of the request in most cases.
Snapchat and X’s Actions
Snapchat’s approach appears less transparent. The company slowed or removed accounts in Saudi Arabia without notifying the account owners, and Snap Inc. declined to comment on the matter. X’s letters to affected users acknowledged the Saudi commission’s request but stated that no action had yet been taken. X also urged users to delete the content voluntarily and to seek legal advice if they wished to continue posting.
Implications for Digital Freedom
The blocking of these accounts highlights a growing trend of tech companies acting as instruments of state repression. Human rights organizations argue that such actions undermine free expression and silence dissenting voices. The Saudi government’s lack of response to inquiries further complicates the situation, leaving activists and their supporters in a precarious position.
While the blocking of accounts may not directly threaten public safety, it represents a broader strategy of authoritarian censorship that relies on legal notices, platform pressure, and the outsourcing of repression to global technology firms.
What Happens Next
It remains unclear how many Snapchat accounts were affected and whether X will ultimately block additional content. The Saudi government has not issued a public statement, and the dissidents themselves have warned that this could signal a larger crackdown. Human rights groups continue to monitor the situation and call for greater transparency and accountability from the tech companies involved.
Why it matters
The blocking of dissident accounts by major tech platforms illustrates how social media can be weaponized to silence opposition, raising critical concerns about freedom of expression and the responsibilities of global tech firms.
Key points
- Meta blocked at least seven Saudi dissident accounts after government requests
- Snapchat slowed or removed accounts without notifying users
- X sent letters but has not yet acted on the Saudi commission’s request
- Human rights groups criticize the moves as a form of digital repression
- Meta’s transparency centre lists 144 requested restrictions in April
- The Saudi government remains silent on the issue
Frequently asked questions
Why did Meta block these accounts?
Meta blocked the accounts after receiving requests from Saudi authorities claiming the content violated local laws. The company stated it would restrict availability in the country where the claim was made.
Did Snapchat notify the users about the blocks?
Snapchat reportedly slowed or removed accounts in Saudi Arabia without informing the account owners, and the company declined to comment.
What is X’s position on the Saudi requests?
X sent letters to affected users acknowledging the Saudi commission’s request but said it had not yet taken action and urged users to delete the content or seek legal advice.
Are these actions legal?
The legality depends on Saudi law, but critics argue that the requests are used to silence dissent rather than enforce genuine legal standards.
