There have been reports that Twitter has started to censor criticism of Islam - so of course they have to make a gesture like this as a counterbalance.
Plus of course - as the article points out - by shutting down he terrorist linked accounts you also neuter the criticism/ridicule of the ideology behind it - and since Saudi Arabia shares the ideology its a win win for them.
As a rider to this I would say that the world is transitioning from oil to gas - which is a more environmentally acceptable fuel (generates more water - less CO2) and is also more convenient for all non-transport uses. I believe the switch away from oil will be accompanied not by shortage and high prices - but by glut and low prices.
The politicians may think that they are manipulating the market - but in reality it is driven by factors well beyond their control.
Saudi Arabia does not benefit from the US being oil independent; thus they are happy to keep the price of oil low and help contribute to the imminent bankruptcy of the Dakota shale boomers.
This started because the Saudis wanted to drive the shale producers out of the market. Unfortunately (for them) they miscalculated the level of price drop that would be necessary to do this (partly because the US has a preference for US sourced oil - even at a slightly higher price). Hence they are now hurting - and unlike other large oil producers - their economy has little else to fall back on.
Re: Elections on a fixed schedule pretty much garantee..
Elections on a fixed schedule pretty much garantee.. ..that nothing of any substance happens in the year and a half preceding an elections.
Whereas elections on an irregular but limited schedule (as in the UK before 2010 - and as I guess we will have again once a goverment loses its majority after 3 years) pretty much guarantees a permanent version of that paralysis - apart maybe from the first 9 months or so after the previous election.
The limited term of US presidents combined with the mid term elections in the US creates a unique "super-paralysis".
The alternative is of course the possibility of one party becoming entrenched and enacting lots of legislation against the public's will. This happened in the UK under Thatcher. I think that I prefer paralysis!
Whether the Ecuador court should have levied the penalty to begin with - I don't think they should per the government's prior approval.
You miss the point here - the government - aka the executive is not the same thing as the Ecuadorian State. This is true of any modern democratic country and was true even before modern democracies came into being. It was the main point of the Magna Carta.
Yes a company should be able to rely on a government provided that government is acting lawfully. It is the responsibility of the company to determine whether this is the case. If the company is actually complicit in unlawfulness then that is even worse.
Without this separation it would have been impossible to impeach President Nixon (for example).