"The Introduction to a Massive Crackdown": Meta, X and Snapchat Block Saudi Dissidents on Kingdom's Orders — US Platforms Accused of Becoming 'Instruments of Repression'

22 May 2026 | San Francisco & London — Updated 19:30 GMT

From his home in Washington DC, Abdullah Alaoudh checks his Instagram. His feed is intact. His posts are still there. But thousands of miles away, in Riyadh, Jeddah, and Dammam — his followers see nothing. A blank space. A digital ghost.

In Montreal, Omar Abdulaziz opens Snapchat. His account exists. But something is wrong. The views have stopped. The engagement has flatlined. Saudi Arabia has erased him without deleting him.

In London, a human rights lawyer refreshes X. A notification appears: "We have received a legal request from the Saudi Communications, Space and Technology Commission." The account is still visible. For now.

The kingdom is not sending assassins anymore. It is sending emails.

SAN FRANCISCO/LONDON – Major US social media companies including Meta's Facebook and Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and Snapchat have blocked the accounts of Saudi dissidents inside the kingdom, following orders from Saudi authorities — prompting activists to accuse Silicon Valley of becoming "instruments of repression."

Those affected include Abdullah Alaoudh, a US-based activist and vocal critic of Saudi human rights violations, and Omar Abdulaziz, a Canada and UK-based activist who worked closely with Jamal Khashoggi before the journalist's murder by Saudi agents in 2018. At least seven accounts had been blocked by Meta at the end of April, including those of two American citizens and two individuals based in Europe, according to the advocacy group American Committee for Middle East Rights (ACMER).

'Meta Is Doing Saudi Arabia's Dirty Work': Activists Speak Out

Alaoudh, who serves as ACMER's senior policy advisor, did not mince words. "Meta is effectively doing Saudi Arabia's dirty work against Americans living in the United States," he said. "When a company geo-blocks accounts on behalf of a government with a documented record of silencing dissent, it becomes an instrument of repression. Meta should push back."

Meta did not respond directly to the "dirty work" claim but provided a statement to the Guardian saying that when "something happens" on one of its platforms that is reported as violating local law — but not the company's own community standards — the company may restrict the content's availability in the country where it is alleged to be unlawful. It added that "in a majority of cases" it informs affected users which state authorities sent the requests.

Meta operates a public "transparency center," where it acknowledges that Saudi authorities contacted the company and sought restrictions on a total of 144 Instagram accounts, Facebook pages, and Facebook profiles during April alone. The site also shows that Meta restricted access to 108 "items" — a category that includes posts, stories, and entire accounts.

Different Platforms, Same Result: Erasure by Email

Interviews with the dissidents targeted suggest the companies approached by Saudi authorities did not all respond in the same way — but the outcome was identical.

Meta (Instagram/Facebook): Did alert users that their content was being blocked due to a "local legal requirement, or a request from a government." The notification provides transparency, but not restoration.

Snapchat: Appears to have slowed or removed accounts in Saudi Arabia — including one used by Abdulaziz — without alerting the account owners of the change. It is not clear how many Snapchat accounts were affected. Snap Inc declined to comment.

X (Twitter, owned by Elon Musk): At least two users received letters informing them that the platform had received a request from the Saudi communications, space and technology commission claiming their accounts violated Saudi laws. X told users including Abdulaziz that it had not taken any action on the reported content yet, writing that the company "strongly believes in defending and respecting the voice of our users." It then urged addressees to seek legal advice if they wished, or to delete the relevant content voluntarily. X did not respond to a request for comment.

A Saudi decree attached to the letters and seen by the Guardian said the accounts transmitted material that "infringes on public order, religious values, public morals, or the sanctity of private life" — a broad formulation that activists say could apply to virtually any criticism of the kingdom.

'This Is Just the Introduction to a Massive Crackdown'

Omar Abdulaziz, whose account was targeted across multiple platforms, drew a direct line between the digital censorship and the physical violence that claimed Khashoggi's life.

"I think this is just the introduction to a massive crackdown by the Saudi government to mute opposition," Abdulaziz told the Guardian. "It could go as far as committing atrocities, just like they did with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi."

Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident, was murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018. His body was dismembered and never recovered. A US intelligence report concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the operation. The Saudi government denied his involvement.

Abdulaziz worked closely with Khashoggi before the murder, helping to coordinate his social media presence and amplify his criticism of the Saudi regime. Now, he finds himself facing the same censorship apparatus that tried to silence Khashoggi — only this time, American technology companies are enforcing it.

'This Is How Authoritarian Censorship Travels'

Other accounts targeted include those of individuals linked to the London-based human rights organisation ALQST, including its founder, Yahya Assiri. ALQST said the requests from Saudi Arabia did not represent a neutral legal process, but instead exposed how authoritarian censorship can be dressed up as procedure.

"These [account holders] are not dangerous actors; they are people documenting abuses, challenging state propaganda and giving voice to Saudis inside the country who cannot speak freely," said Dr Maryam Aldossari, an ALQST board member.

"Blocking these accounts would not protect public safety, it would project authoritarian power from scrutiny. X cannot hide behind vague references to 'local legal requirements' when those laws are routinely used to criminalise peaceful dissent."

"This is how authoritarian censorship travels: through legal notices, platform pressure and the attempted outsourcing of repression to global technology companies."

The Saudi government did not respond to a request for comment, sent through the Saudi embassy in Washington.

Silicon Valley's Saudi Dilemma

The compliance of US tech giants with Saudi censorship requests is not new, but the scale and speed of the recent crackdown have alarmed human rights advocates. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's most active governments in requesting content removal from global platforms, often citing vaguely worded laws against "terrorism," "public order," or "religious values."

For US companies, the calculus is straightforward: comply with local laws or risk being blocked entirely in one of the region's wealthiest and most strategically important markets. Saudi Arabia has a young, hyper-connected population of over 35 million people, and its sovereign wealth fund has invested billions in American technology.

But activists argue that compliance has a cost — not just to the dissidents whose voices are silenced, but to the credibility of the platforms themselves.

"Meta, X and Snapchat are not neutral pipes," said Alaoudh. "They are making a choice every time they comply with a Saudi request. They are choosing profit over principle. They are choosing the kingdom over the dissident."

Stay updated with the latest tech trends on our Tech Trends Page.