AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): A new report by The Guardian has once again brought to the forefront the debate about the relationship between free speech, government pressure, and the policies of major technology social networks. According to this report, the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), which after being purchased by Elon Musk positioned itself as a defender of "free speech," has now restricted access to dozens of accounts critical of the Saudi government for users within the country; an action that, according to human rights activists, indicates a clear shift in the company's approach.
More Than 60 Accounts Were Restricted for Saudi Users
The Guardian reported that since mid-July 2026, more than 60 accounts belonging to political activists, academics, independent media, and Saudi dissidents have been "geo-blocked" at the request of Saudi officials for users within the country; meaning that these accounts have not been deleted, but users inside Saudi Arabia can no longer view their content.
Among those whose accounts have been restricted are figures such as Yahya al-Asiri, the head of the human rights organization ALQST, and Abdullah al-Ouda, a Saudi activist based in the United States. They have announced that they received an email from X stating that these restrictions were imposed for "compliance with Saudi local laws," not due to violations of the platform's internal rules.
From Free Speech to Alignment with Saudi Censorship
What makes this report more significant is the shift in X's position compared to a few months ago. The Guardian recalls that in a report published in May 2026, X had announced that it had not acted on Saudi requests to restrict dissident accounts and "believes in defending its users' voices." Now, however, the same platform has begun restricting accounts.
This shift has raised questions about the real policy of free speech during Elon Musk's management; a manager who had repeatedly presented himself as a "supporter of absolute free speech."
Alignment with Other Tech Giants
According to this report, X is the latest company to respond positively to Riyadh's requests. Previously, Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram) and Snapchat had also restricted or removed access to the accounts of some Saudi dissidents. The human rights organization ALQST has described this trend as a sign of the expanding cooperation of technology companies with government censorship requests.
Saudi Arabia's Argument and Critics' Response
According to documents seen by The Guardian, Saudi officials have accused these accounts of publishing material that, in their claim, violates "public order, religious values, public morals, or privacy." But human rights activists say these charges are extremely broad and interpretable, and are in practice used to silence political critics.
In response to this action, Abdullah al-Ouda has said that the problem is not just the restriction of accounts, but that companies restrict access to users' content without the users having violated their own rules, solely to enforce a government's domestic laws.
This case is not just about a few user accounts, but returns to a broader issue called digital sovereignty; that is, the question of whether technology companies should enforce the domestic laws of different countries to continue operating in their markets, even if those laws conflict with global standards of free speech.
Advocates of these companies believe that if they defy local laws, there is a possibility of their services being completely blocked in that country. In contrast, critics say that accepting such requests turns technology companies into tools for exerting pressure on political dissidents.
A Contradiction That Remains a Subject of Debate
The Guardian report comes as Elon Musk has repeatedly criticized governments' strict policies against free speech over the past years and justified the purchase of Twitter with the slogan of "restoring free speech." However, critics say X's recent action shows that even a platform that positions itself as a defender of free speech has, in practice, followed the same path as other major technology companies when faced with governments' legal requirements.
Ultimately, this case once again raises the fundamental question of where the line is between enforcing national laws and protecting free speech; a question that, with the expanding power of social networks and increasing government pressure on these platforms, has become one of the most important challenges of digital governance in the world.
**************
End/ 345E
