Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

For the past year, I've had a running digital conversation with a well-known Silicon Valley investor over my criticisms of tech startups taking money from Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund. Almost any time I write the word "Khashoggi," my phone buzzes with a link to the latest human rights violation in China.

The state of play: The investor's argument is that I dove head-first down a slippery slope. Even if the Chinese government doesn't directly invest in a U.S. company, as the Saudis often do, it's very difficult to separate China's private and public enterprise. Particularly in tech.

  • So, de facto, the Chinese government is arguably investing. And, conversely, U.S. investors and firms are supporting China's government by backing Chinese companies.

The big picture: Yes, foreign direct investment between the countries has deteriorated in the past year, thanks to the endless trade war, but there's still plenty of cross-border deals and non-investment partnerships.

  • I write this against the backdrop of British soccer team Arsenal, owned by St. Louis turncoat Stan Kroenke, today publicly distancing itself from the comments of one of its own players, who criticized China's government for its mass detention of Uighur Muslims (thus causing China's state broadcaster to pull an Arsenal match).

Why it matters: There is no simple exit off the slippery slope here for me, or for those who invest in China but abhor its human rights record.

  • Except, perhaps, to first consider how you'd react if an employee or other stakeholder were to make a criticism similar to that of the Arsenal player, or when asked by a journalist.
  • If the answer is to beg forgiveness, like usually-Silent Stan, or to dodge, then don't lie down in the first place.
  • If it's to support the comments and let the chips fall where they may, then enjoy the ride.

Go deeper:

Go deeper

America's nightmare foretold

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

President Trump made it clear at the debate that he’ll continue to call the results fraudulent — and contest the outcome in key states — no matter how wide the margin. That’ll be amplified by a massive amount of disinformation, even though the platforms are trying to curtail it.

Why it matters: Back in 2000, we didn’t know Bush v. Gore was going to happen. We know this is going to happen.

2 hours ago - Technology

Congress looks to squeeze Big Tech ahead of election

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Tech companies are bracing for a tough day in three separate Capitol Hill committees Thursday, as lawmakers move to show they're tough on social media platforms in the days leading up to the election.

Why it matters: Big Tech has become a go-to punching bag for both the right and left, and tech policy has become increasingly fertile ground for grievance politics.

The array of far-right groups "standing by" after Trump's call

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

President Trump's refusal to condemn white nationalists during Tuesday night's debate drew a lot of attention — including from the Proud Boys, the far-right group he asked to "stand back and stand by."

Why it matters: The Proud Boys remain relatively small — a Portland rally this past weekend billed as the group's largest-ever gathering drew just a few hundred people. But Trump's failure to condemn extremist groups has been welcomed as an endorsement by a wide constellation of people on the fringes.