“No politics” Coinbase rolls out feature to promote crypto-friendly politicians(web3isgoinggreat.com)
web3isgoinggreat.com
“No politics” Coinbase rolls out feature to promote crypto-friendly politicians
https://web3isgoinggreat.com/single/no-politics-at-work-coinbase-rolls-out-a-feature-to-promote-crypto-friendly-politicians
35 comments
This is A very practical take. It’s odd that I have say it’s a sane take, because 15 years ago this would be the way 95% of companies operated.
Companies engaging in political activities to further their goals is understandable.
Shoving politician rankings into their user facing app to attempt to get customers directly involved in their political lobbying is a bit too much. People would absolutely criticize other tech companies for doing this.
Shoving politician rankings into their user facing app to attempt to get customers directly involved in their political lobbying is a bit too much. People would absolutely criticize other tech companies for doing this.
makes me wonder if something is a true distraction is there an associated cost for taking on that distraction. I guess an opportunity cost of resources and focus/attention the employees are asked to grapple with.
> In the blog post she references (but, tellingly, does not link)
This is standard procedure for most journalists - they prefer to present only their interpretation (or spin) of events, rather than let their audience form their own opinion.
See for example how many stories of someone making offensive statements omit quoting those statements. And if you'll allow me to reach a bit, it seems the cruder and more unpersuasive the statements are, the more likely they are to be quoted, while any more intellectual, compelling reasoning gets omitted.
Edit: Flimm points out that in this instance, there is a link. So the article merely misrepresents it, and does not also omit it, which I maintain is the norm.
This is standard procedure for most journalists - they prefer to present only their interpretation (or spin) of events, rather than let their audience form their own opinion.
See for example how many stories of someone making offensive statements omit quoting those statements. And if you'll allow me to reach a bit, it seems the cruder and more unpersuasive the statements are, the more likely they are to be quoted, while any more intellectual, compelling reasoning gets omitted.
Edit: Flimm points out that in this instance, there is a link. So the article merely misrepresents it, and does not also omit it, which I maintain is the norm.
I don't like Coinbase's policy, but this is not at all inconsistent with it. They were clear that they'd only ever engage politically in order to further their company's goals. This is exactly what they said they'd do.
I would not work at a company that behaved like Coinbase in this case, but it's not fair to suggest they are being hypocritical here. Their stance has been consistent - it's just a bad one.
I would not work at a company that behaved like Coinbase in this case, but it's not fair to suggest they are being hypocritical here. Their stance has been consistent - it's just a bad one.
"politics only for the companies goals" sounds good to me... What's wrong with it?
Eg. A coffee company gets involved in the politics around recyclable cups, labor laws, import taxes on coffee, etc. But they don't get involved with abortion...
Eg. A coffee company gets involved in the politics around recyclable cups, labor laws, import taxes on coffee, etc. But they don't get involved with abortion...
> Eg. A coffee company gets involved in the politics around recyclable cups, labor laws, import taxes on coffee, etc. But they don't get involved with abortion...
The problem becomes that these things aren't cleanly separable and policy support is basically fungible; the anti-coffee-import-tax politician might oppose forcing almond growers in California to reduce water usage, or the pro crypto politician might be for federal anti-abortion measures. You can't earmark the money for some kinds of votes but not others; funding a politician's re-election gets you everything they vote for or nothing at all.
So it becomes not so much "no politics" as "the corporation's politics ahead of any other"; exacerbating drought conditions in California is "political" and not worth discussing even as the politician responsible for it is funded in order to obtain import-tax-free coffee, or banning abortion is considered an acceptable price to pay (and don't you dare bring up this consequence at work, for that would be "political") for pro-crypto policies.
I don't even necessarily object to companies saying "I accept that X happening is the cost of obtaining corporate goal Y", it's just ludicrously dishonest to pretend that involving themselves in politics isn't political and doesn't have political consequences beyond "crypto good".
The problem becomes that these things aren't cleanly separable and policy support is basically fungible; the anti-coffee-import-tax politician might oppose forcing almond growers in California to reduce water usage, or the pro crypto politician might be for federal anti-abortion measures. You can't earmark the money for some kinds of votes but not others; funding a politician's re-election gets you everything they vote for or nothing at all.
So it becomes not so much "no politics" as "the corporation's politics ahead of any other"; exacerbating drought conditions in California is "political" and not worth discussing even as the politician responsible for it is funded in order to obtain import-tax-free coffee, or banning abortion is considered an acceptable price to pay (and don't you dare bring up this consequence at work, for that would be "political") for pro-crypto policies.
I don't even necessarily object to companies saying "I accept that X happening is the cost of obtaining corporate goal Y", it's just ludicrously dishonest to pretend that involving themselves in politics isn't political and doesn't have political consequences beyond "crypto good".
I totally agree with you about what the problem with the policy is - but I don't think Coinbase is doing this:
> pretend[ing] that involving themselves in politics isn't political and doesn't have political consequences beyond "crypto good".
I don't think they're pretending it doesn't. I think they're making it clear they simply don't care.
They don't care about climate, or BLM, or the 2020 election, or whatever. They only care about crypto. The world can burn so long as crypto numbers go up.
But at least they're honest about it.
> pretend[ing] that involving themselves in politics isn't political and doesn't have political consequences beyond "crypto good".
I don't think they're pretending it doesn't. I think they're making it clear they simply don't care.
They don't care about climate, or BLM, or the 2020 election, or whatever. They only care about crypto. The world can burn so long as crypto numbers go up.
But at least they're honest about it.
> But at least they're honest about it.
They're really not though, insofar as they're framing "not caring" as "not political". It's very political to not care that you're handing money to someone who's anti-abortion (or pro-abortion) because it will get you some other thing, other issues be damned.
If they framed that as not caring that would be one thing, but framing it as "not political" assumes a level of abject stupidity in the people they're making that claim to that I'm disinclined to play along with.
They're really not though, insofar as they're framing "not caring" as "not political". It's very political to not care that you're handing money to someone who's anti-abortion (or pro-abortion) because it will get you some other thing, other issues be damned.
If they framed that as not caring that would be one thing, but framing it as "not political" assumes a level of abject stupidity in the people they're making that claim to that I'm disinclined to play along with.
[deleted]
The "No politics" at Coinbase refers to topics outside of the company's core mission. Regardless of what one thinks of lobbying, seeking beneficial regulation does not contradict the spirit of "no politics at work".
I get your point, but I think it's a convenient one. I, personally, wouldn't be comfortable working at a company that is actively promoting a politician I fundamentally disagree with, and being told I can't say anything because that's "politics".
> I, personally, wouldn't be comfortable working at a company that is actively promoting a politician I fundamentally disagree with
First off, if you are working for coinbase and you can't handle it supporting politicians that aren't trying to regulate crypto out of existence, then you have no business working there.
2ndly, why? are you so defined by your politics? 99% of companies donate to politicians I fundamentally disagree with. I guess its easy for you to be that way and hard for me because you have choice and I don't.
3rdly, For coinbase, they don't want people discussing politics at work. I wish my company had this policy, as I am sick and tired of people talking about politics.
First off, if you are working for coinbase and you can't handle it supporting politicians that aren't trying to regulate crypto out of existence, then you have no business working there.
2ndly, why? are you so defined by your politics? 99% of companies donate to politicians I fundamentally disagree with. I guess its easy for you to be that way and hard for me because you have choice and I don't.
3rdly, For coinbase, they don't want people discussing politics at work. I wish my company had this policy, as I am sick and tired of people talking about politics.
Lets say I really like basketball, like a lot, so much so that I want to work at a basketball company doing something. In doing so I accept that a basketball company will want to promote politicians that will build sports centers and will promote basketball (or whatever).
On the surface this is fine. However, a politician is not only a basketball advocate, this person will have thoughts on abortion, civil rights, healthcare, etc.
Now, just because I like basketball so much I want to work for a basketball company doesn't mean I like basketball more than my healthcare, right to bodily autonomy, or my right to marry who I want to. So is it not within reasonable expectation for me to be upset at a company that actively supports politicians that want to end my marriage or strip me of fundamental civil rights?
This is why a strict "no politics", (while still a cop-out imo because taking no side is implicitly siding with the oppressor), is the only logically consistent attitude to take if you don't want to "be political" at work. You don't get to use basketball, or crypto for that matter, as a shield against criticism for supporting someone that wants to raise taxes or cut healthcare spending.
The argument is not "I don't think crypto companies should support crypto politicians" the argument is "You cannot ignore the negative externalities of single-issue voting". If you vote for a pro-crypto politician that also supports, say, killing toddlers if they don't pass 1st grade math class; you can't ignore the fact he wants to kill toddlers just because he is also pro-crypto. It's ethically negligent to do so.
----
For your 3rdly point: You forfeit this option when the boss decides to talk THEIR politics at work.
On the surface this is fine. However, a politician is not only a basketball advocate, this person will have thoughts on abortion, civil rights, healthcare, etc.
Now, just because I like basketball so much I want to work for a basketball company doesn't mean I like basketball more than my healthcare, right to bodily autonomy, or my right to marry who I want to. So is it not within reasonable expectation for me to be upset at a company that actively supports politicians that want to end my marriage or strip me of fundamental civil rights?
This is why a strict "no politics", (while still a cop-out imo because taking no side is implicitly siding with the oppressor), is the only logically consistent attitude to take if you don't want to "be political" at work. You don't get to use basketball, or crypto for that matter, as a shield against criticism for supporting someone that wants to raise taxes or cut healthcare spending.
The argument is not "I don't think crypto companies should support crypto politicians" the argument is "You cannot ignore the negative externalities of single-issue voting". If you vote for a pro-crypto politician that also supports, say, killing toddlers if they don't pass 1st grade math class; you can't ignore the fact he wants to kill toddlers just because he is also pro-crypto. It's ethically negligent to do so.
----
For your 3rdly point: You forfeit this option when the boss decides to talk THEIR politics at work.
Agree with all you said. The company has to navigate a political (regulatory) landscape so I would expect the company to consider those aspects.
What I don’t want:
CEO: I don’t believe in eating tunafish, we will stop getting lunch from Marco’s Tacos cuz they also sell tuna salad! We’re providing a link so you can donate to the Tuna fund, it’s not mandatory, but it’s a great cause!
What I don’t want:
CEO: I don’t believe in eating tunafish, we will stop getting lunch from Marco’s Tacos cuz they also sell tuna salad! We’re providing a link so you can donate to the Tuna fund, it’s not mandatory, but it’s a great cause!
That's fine that you don't feel comfortable working for such a company; I might not either. That said, I'm not being paid to espouse my personal political opinions, I'm paid to further the interests of the company (and if I can't do that in good conscience, then I should probably find new work).
in our representative system, there is no practical way to separate out political activism to one topic. What I mean is this: if there are two candidates in a race, of whom candidate A supports crypto and opposes trans healthcare; whereas candidate B opposes crypto and supports trans healthcare; then there are only two outcomes to the race. A wins or B does. If you support A "because of crypto" then you are also supporting their position on trans healthcare. You are taking a position on trans healthcare, even if that position is just "I don't care enough about it to change my material support for candidate A". The policy is saying that Coinbase can support candidate A in spite of their trans healthcare stance, while you as an employee can not support candidate B because of their trans healthcare stance - an imaginary distinction with no material political impact whatsoever.
> while you as an employee can not support candidate B because of their trans healthcare stance - an imaginary distinction with no material political impact whatsoever.
To be fair, coinbase's opinion is actually that an employee cannot support candidate B WITH COINBASE'S MONEY.
To be fair, coinbase's opinion is actually that an employee cannot support candidate B WITH COINBASE'S MONEY.
But you can support candidate A with coinbase's money, despite the fact that candidate A has non-crypto related opinions. What's worse is that candidate A might not even have a real pro-crypto stance, they just realize that crypto companies take this "no politics" stance, so it's essentially legalized bribery encouraged by the companies that take the stance
Its coinbase's money though? Are they not supposed to be able to specify how their own money is used? I'm just not sure I understand what the objection is. I don't endorse it but I don't see how this is inconsistent or hypocritical or legalized bribery or whatever
I mean, yes they can use their money however they want, its their right. All I’m saying is that “No politics” isn’t actually no politics, and I’m generally hesitant to work for or do business with any company who claims to have a no politics rule, especially if they participate in politics to further their personal interests. What it actually means is they will end up supporting mostly shady politicians who can’t get small donors to support them.
I think promoting politicians violates the "no politics" spirit but promoting/lobbying for specific legislation would not.
Because once you start promoting individuals based on a single issue you agree with, you've become a mark. Your vote, your support is easy to get by simply paying the bare minimum lip service to the cause.
I could run for office on a platform of polluting the environment, defining abortion to include straight up murdering babies up to 9 months old, mandating each student carries a long gun with a minimum 20 round capacity, arson, rape, and pillaging. But as long as I'm also pro-crypto, Coinbase will support me. Which includes, if not implicit support for the rest of my positions, at least tolerance of them. Especially if I'm the only pro-crypto politician on the docket.
And as long as my pro-crypto stance is a minority one, I don't even have to be successful in advancing pro-crypto laws.
The net effect of the stance of supporting politicians on a single issue is that you wind up supporting horrible politicians and horrible people.
What one should do, and is the much harder path, is to petition your current politicians to adopt your views. To convince them that either enough people want it or that it would be good for the people and they will thank you for it by continuing to vote for you.
But still, "politics" is a lot like null, it's a greedy term. You really can't do "some politics" or "politics, but just in this one area". Once you introduce the term, you now have to be aware of it everywhere.
Because once you start promoting individuals based on a single issue you agree with, you've become a mark. Your vote, your support is easy to get by simply paying the bare minimum lip service to the cause.
I could run for office on a platform of polluting the environment, defining abortion to include straight up murdering babies up to 9 months old, mandating each student carries a long gun with a minimum 20 round capacity, arson, rape, and pillaging. But as long as I'm also pro-crypto, Coinbase will support me. Which includes, if not implicit support for the rest of my positions, at least tolerance of them. Especially if I'm the only pro-crypto politician on the docket.
And as long as my pro-crypto stance is a minority one, I don't even have to be successful in advancing pro-crypto laws.
The net effect of the stance of supporting politicians on a single issue is that you wind up supporting horrible politicians and horrible people.
What one should do, and is the much harder path, is to petition your current politicians to adopt your views. To convince them that either enough people want it or that it would be good for the people and they will thank you for it by continuing to vote for you.
But still, "politics" is a lot like null, it's a greedy term. You really can't do "some politics" or "politics, but just in this one area". Once you introduce the term, you now have to be aware of it everywhere.
Never heard about this person but their Wikipedia page is something else, like an ad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_White_(writer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_White_(writer)
It's definitely either self-promotion or promotion through friends in the community seeing as she edits a lot. It totally reads like an ad.
But that works. I know one guy who had his Chief of Staff write his Wikipedia.
But that works. I know one guy who had his Chief of Staff write his Wikipedia.
"No politics" has always meant "the boss's politics."
"No politics" means "no partisan identity activism on the clock" like asking a company to get involved in "Black Lives Matters", taking positions about the war in Ukraine beyond nationwide sanctions, or displaying a rainbow flag during "pride month".
Lobbying politicians further the interests of the company obviously doesn't count.
Lobbying politicians further the interests of the company obviously doesn't count.
Maybe I've just drank too much of the kool aid, but it seems that prohibiting things like the equivalent of wearing a rainbow pride shirt or Ukraine flag pin is too much. If you don't want politics - or for that matter, discussing the latest Marvel movie trailer - to distract from company business, then why not just make that you policy instead of banning politics?
People don't generally get into fights, go on strike, or demand violence against other parties over a marvel movie trailer.
>"No politics" means "no partisan identity activism on the clock" like asking a company to get involved in "Black Lives Matters", taking positions about the war in Ukraine beyond nationwide sanctions, or displaying a rainbow flag during "pride month".
Nah. "No politics" simply means "no politics I disagree with".
Nah. "No politics" simply means "no politics I disagree with".
Quite a lot of companies think that things like civil rights are good for their businesses, and so support them. They see themselves as furthering the interests of the company.
So here "no politics" appears to mean "only the politics that the CEO personally likes". Which, fine, CEOs can do that. But that doesn't mean that people can't point out the hypocrisy of a "no politics" stand that doesn't actually mean "no politics". Which I think is always the case with "no politics" stands, really. It's a way for powerful ingroups to deny that outgroup issues should even be discussed.
So here "no politics" appears to mean "only the politics that the CEO personally likes". Which, fine, CEOs can do that. But that doesn't mean that people can't point out the hypocrisy of a "no politics" stand that doesn't actually mean "no politics". Which I think is always the case with "no politics" stands, really. It's a way for powerful ingroups to deny that outgroup issues should even be discussed.
Rather than post n comments on HN about how this article is deceptive, let’s just flag it.
At first blush this would be gross--from the perspective of a student like straight outta high school--but these days? Much lower bar.
In the blog post she references (but, tellingly, does not link) Armstrong says specifically that Coinbase will engage in politics around crypto:
>We focus minimally on causes not directly related to the mission:
>Policy decisions: If there is a bill introduced around crypto, we may engage here, but we normally wouldn’t engage in policy decisions around healthcare or education for example.
>...
>Political causes: We don’t advocate for any particular causes or candidates internally that are unrelated to our mission, because it is a distraction from our mission.
[0] https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-comp...