Meta, Snapchat Block 7 Saudi Dissident Accounts After 144 Saudi Takedown Requests
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · May 22
Meta, Snapchat Block 7 Saudi Dissident Accounts After 144 Saudi Takedown Requests
2 articles · Updated · The Guardian · May 22
At least seven Saudi dissident accounts were geo-blocked inside the kingdom by late April, including profiles tied to U.S.-based activist Abdullah Alaoudh and exiled activist Omar Abdulaziz.
Meta’s transparency data shows Saudi authorities sought restrictions on 144 Facebook and Instagram accounts, pages and profiles in April, and Meta says it may limit content locally when governments allege legal violations.
Snapchat also slowed or removed some targeted accounts in Saudi Arabia, according to interviews, but unlike Meta it appears not to have notified affected users; Snap declined to comment.
X received similar Saudi requests affecting at least two users but said it had not acted yet, instead warning users and citing its commitment to defending their voice.
Activists and rights groups say the moves extend Saudi repression across global platforms, echoing fears of a broader crackdown years after Jamal Khashoggi’s 2018 murder.
Can Saudi Arabia become a global AI leader while intensifying its digital crackdown on dissent?
Will tech giants become tools for state censors or the last defenders of online free speech?
Saudi Arabia’s May 2026 Crackdown on Social Media: Human Rights, Data Localization, and Regional Repression
Overview
In May 2026, Saudi authorities launched a major crackdown on social media accounts by submitting official requests to platforms like X to block content and restrict access within the Kingdom. These actions were based on decisions from the Saudi Public Prosecution, which claimed that the targeted accounts violated Saudi regulations, specifically citing the Cybercrime Law that criminalizes content seen as harming public order, religious values, or public morals. Among those targeted were individuals linked to the human rights group ALQST, whose founder criticized the process as lacking neutrality and serving as a tool for censorship rather than justice.