42 ms·

Why is a company wanting to be apolitical is controversial? That should be the default, is this an American thing like how masks and healthcare are controversia

Why is a company wanting to be apolitical is controversial? That should be the default, is this an American thing like how masks and healthcare are controversial? I would expect a government to have proper separation from church and state, so why is it weird to want a company to separate politics and mission? I can't see any good coming from being in a work environment where the company supports a political issue I'm strongly against, it would make co-workers and myself feel like opponents and likely make for a hostile work environment.

wwright 6y ago
I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). Politics is ultimately about how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society, not just which “party” you like. The very act of being a company is very relative to the laws and regulations your country has, which are of course determined by politics. Coinbase is specifically a company about cryptocurrency. Crypto is directly related to a how governments manage their own currency, the right to privacy, law circumvention (see Alpha Bay), and so on. How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do?
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  Should toilets be political too? Which would you use?
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Toilets are political which is why certain places have moved to uni-sex toilets.
    - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      I mean the porcelain friend specifically. Which party symbols should it be ordained with?
- chii 6y ago
  > you can’t truly be apolitical; that's one of those "you're either with us or against us" type of deal - which is not the right way to deal with anything imho. You _can_ be apolitical - as in, you do not let your political views affect what you do. You keep your political views private. You do not try to change anyone else's political views as part of your job.
  - rmc 6y ago
    I think the issue is “How do you decide what is political and what isn't?” e.g. if you're a communist, then the existence is shareholders is political support for capitalism. So how do you remain “apolitical” then?
    - chii 6y ago
      > So how do you remain “apolitical” then? Outside of your job, you can be as politically active as you wish. Nobody is saying you should stop all political activism. But if i walk into a store intending to buy something, i don't want to be blasted with any political message or be asked to sign up for a rally or donate to some cause i don't care about. And an employee should work on the job they are being hired to do, not spend work time undertaking political activism unless explicitly allowed by their boss (for example, your company may allow you time off for charity or such activities). If, for example, your political view is that of communism, then you will have to suffer in silence in the USA while working for shareholders/owners of property. Or quit your job if you cannot stand it. What you can't do is use your job as a resource to push that view further than you could on your own.
      - throwaway936482 6y ago
        So that's unions out then. Sounds like a political stance to me if you ban people from advocating for collective bargaining in the workplace.
        chii 6y ago
        collective bargaining starts at the level of government - not within the workplace. It would obviously be in the interest of the employer to stop it from starting up. So you take this political stance outside of work. If enough people can be convinced that collective bargaining is a good idea, it will get enshrined into law. Employers will have to comply. On the other hand, organising during work time (which is being paid for by your employer) is unethical - and regardless of my feelings of the idea of collective bargaining, it should not be done on someone else's dime.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- celticninja 6y ago
  certain roles require you to be apolitical, i'm thinking of employees of a national civil service whose role is to implement policy not decide it. If you had to quit when a party you didnt support was in power it would cause huge problems for continuity of services. Essentially then the civil service becomes political, which is really what it should not be.
- pracer 6y ago
  You are confusing people with companies. A person is political, a company should not. Otherwise, you are siding with totalitarian regimes that decide which services or rights you have based on what you think or believe. It was tried in the past, good luck for that.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    When things like climate science have been turned into political issues, this is next to impossible.
- username90 6y ago
  > I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). If someone just does their job with people no matter who they are then they are not political. Being gay is not political. Being trans is not political. Being black is not political. Saying that gays/trans/black people shouldn't exist or doesn't belong is political. Saying that everyone needs to care about gay/trans/black rights is political. A trans person and a fundamental Christian who works well together without bringing up either political stance are not political. If the fundamental Christian makes a fuzz then he is political and should be reprimanded. If the trans person digs into the Christians opinions until they find something to get angry about and then get angry they are political. I don't see why this is concept would be so hard to understand.
  - BoiledCabbage 6y ago
    > If someone just does their job with people no matter who they are then they are not political. And what happens when it's not the case? When people don't just treat people of foo group normally, and it's happening throughout the company? What should foo group do? Ask the company to get to an apolitical state where they can just do their job? Let people in the company know that it's going on? By you definition, that's political and wrong. Or do they just bear the cost of it while others continue doing what they're doing? > I don't see why this is concept would be so hard to understand Because (In my opinion) you're starting with a fundamentally flawed premise that there isn't already politics in the work place. There always has been. The important difference is that the only thing that gets branded as "politics" is anything different from the status quo. If it's politics aligned with the status quo it's not seen as politics even when it it. A similar example. I'm not taking a stand on it in any way here, but kneeling during the national anthem before a football game was considered a political act (which it is). One response was "keep politics out of football" (parallel to our discussion here). But again similar to our discussion here it was glossing over the fact that playing the national anthem before a sporting event is an extremely political action to begin with (ex. Should we play the national anthem before a game of Jeopardy?). Saying there wasn't politics before / by default, is just turning a blind eye to the existing politics because it's the status quo.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  it's correct that crypto is against all politics, and thus coinbase is de facto far-libertarian, or anarchocapitalist. That doesn't prevent it from creating "an apolitical culture" in their workplace. Just like how , today , a libertarian might work for the Fed or something. I thought their point is that the politics of individual workers won't distract from the company's "mission" (whatever that is, i assume it's the product). that said i think it's wrong to ascribe political motives to every move and claim that nobody can be a-political in public. Political belongs to the public sphere and not everyone wants to live in there.
- vowelless 6y ago
  > Politics is ultimately about how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society, It is so sad that people increasingly have this view. Politics was never how “we engaged and collaborated in society”.
  - clinta 6y ago
    Politics is discussing when it is justified and appropriate to use violence. For enforcing laws, collecting taxes ect... All peaceful human interaction falls outside of that.
    - Loughla 6y ago
      I legitimately do not understand defining collecting taxes as violence. That's like the third time I've seen this type of argument on HN. I don't get it. Can you please explain that to me?
      - jacobr1 6y ago
        Most tax collection is completed without violence in practical sense. But taxes are backed by the threat of violence. If you don't pay them, you can be charged with a crime and ultimately imprisoned. And if you try to resist imprisonment that is enforced with armed agents of the state who will use force to compel you. Taxes aren't voluntary. This is an old libertarian argument, which when taken to its narrow logical conclusion says all taxes are fundamentally theft and immoral. The primary counter-argument is to suggest that the property or wages being taxed aren't "fully" the possessions of the taxed individual or entity. If you are receiving wages in part because of the state apparatus, then the wages weren't fully yours to begin with. Various forms of social contract theory are used to justify taxes. The other main argument is probably more utilitarian. Your right to property only extends to the extent that it is socially valuable in comparison to other rights and responsibilities. Property is this model isn't a fundamental right, but one mechanism used in combinations with others to maximize human welfare.
        throwaways885 6y ago
- Allower 6y ago
  If you don't know how to separate social issues from politics, well shit, that's the whole problem isn't it. Figure it out or continue being a moron dragging civilization back into the dark ages.
- mc32 6y ago
  Politics is too personal and can only lead to discord among employees. There is little upside to politics being in the open in an established company. It may be useful in attracting talent at some point, but at another point it becomes a liability, unless your company is a PAC or something of the sort. If you serve a wide audience or have a wide workforce, it’s less headache if workers separate their politics from their work unless the employer is paying you to be political.
  - philipov 6y ago
    Yes, and choosing to have such a policy about political discussion is a political act that supports the status quo by quashing dissent. Therefore, many people who are not happy with the status quo are upset by companies that do this.
    - mc32 6y ago
      I don’t want to have to manoeuver and tiptoe around shit all day long. I don’t want to have to think about whom I might unwittingly offend today because of something that happened yesterday that I’m unawares of today. I’m not seeking to offend anyone, but I also don’t want have keep a twitterpulse of what’s woke today vs yesterday. I want a predictable workplace where people understand we’re not perfect and sometimes make untacful remarks without meaning to hurt. I want a forgiving workplace one where minor peccadilloes aren’t picked apart by vultures looking to score points. There are big issues we can agree on. Energy, climate, crime, justice, etc., from a big picture perspective rather than an activist perspective. Activism is tiring. People get exhausted. Long term, people just want to make a living and be left alone if they are not being negative. You can’t live in a world where activism is a way of life like Cuba. Listen to the “Commandant” brother no 1. We have to up bread production right after we recite the revolutionary manifesto one more time before we join hands in community work for the revolution”. No, let me be in peace.
      - bluntfang 6y ago
        >I want a predictable workplace where people understand we’re not perfect and sometimes make untacful remarks without meaning to hurt. I want a forgiving workplace one where minor peccadilloes aren’t picked apart by vultures looking to score points. Just going off this one statement, if you want a forgiving workplace, does that mean you have to own your mistakes and ask for forgiveness when you make an "untactful remark"? It sounds like seeking forgiveness will require you to do things like "think[ing] about whom I might unwittingly offend today because of something that happened yesterday that I’m unawares of today."
- jwalton 6y ago
  > How can they truly be neutral on all these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? They most definitely will not be neutral on policy decisions that affect their business, and if you go read their blog post they said exactly that: > 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.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  > claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). sure if someone says that they believe drug use should not be criminalized but also claim to be apolitical and do nothing to help make drug use legal, it follows that they are supporting the status quo of actually keeping drug use illegal. However if that status quo is changed by the actions of others who do want drug use to be legalized and the apolitical person does nothing to try to oppose this new status quo it can be reasonably assumed that they were in fact apolitical. Then you might say that their politics is to support the Status quo, but that is probably only in regards to the things they don't care strongly enough about to do anything about one way or another. Which is the case with most people. Most people throughout history have been apolitical in this way - if you give them something to decide regarding an issue they have no strong opinions on they will most likely do nothing and let the status quo prevail.
- shireboy 6y ago
  The original post specifically said they would be involved in things directly related to their mission. So conceivably they would be involved in privacy, currency, etc. What I think they are opting out of is the pressure on businesses and individuals to support every cause du jur or denounce the latest fad outrage. While you can't be apolitical, you can be measured, polite, balanced, and recognize there is an appropriate time and place for everything. You can recognize that there is only time and energy for so many things. You can also recognize that much of politics is manufactured outrage and theater. Opting out of all of the daily outrage cycle as a business or individual in favor of contemplative attention to things that truly matter to you on a 10 to 15 year scale seems like a very reasonable approach to me. Claiming that people doing so "support the status quo" or "if you're not with us you're against us" is groupthink and coercive at best, and a mob mentality at worst.
- Igelau 6y ago
  I know I posted it recently and it was poorly received, but it needs to be repeated because people forget. > Politics: > the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. If you think it means: > how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society You're biting at a hook baited with identity politics. That's a curated opinion that politicians are glad you've accepted because it's choked you from imagining that apolitical positions exist. It's absolutely possible to be apolitical. It may be hard to do so. It may be possible to claim to be "apolitical" in a way that gains political leverage. That's dishonesty and it's a different topic.
- conistonwater 6y ago
  Like that famous song, "Don't say he's hypocritical, say rather that he's apolitical. 'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down, that's not my department', says Wernher von Braun."
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  > I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics This seems like a fallacy. X may be undesirable, but it's impossible to completely rid ourselves of X. Therefore it's pointless to even worry about reducing X. Thermodynamics tells us that we can't ever reach absolute zero. Therefore I don't have to put the groceries away in the refrigerator. No person or organization can be completely apolitical, but they can aim to be minimally political. And that difference is substantial. Only a maximal postmodernist would dispute that the NRA is orders of magnitude more political than the IETF. Similarly we strive for our courts to be free of bias. However jurists are flesh and blood. They'll get hungry or sleep and that will affect their mood. Yet we'd all be horrified if a judge openly declared "Ya know what? I hate Dutch-Americans and plan to rule against them in every case regardless of the facts"
  - geofft 6y ago
    I think the analogy works the other way. Thermodynamics, like politics, is a thing we can't be rid of. Therefore, even if you don't care about the exact temperature of your groceries, put them in the fridge. If you have a bag of fresh bread, milk, and frozen meat, it's a lot better to stick the whole bag in the fridge than leave the whole bag in the counter. Obviously it would be even better to put them away properly, but if you want to not care as much as possible, you still have to care a little bit. There's no way to avoid it completely, and ignoring it doesn't make it go away and is certainly not meritorious. The NRA is "more political" in the sense of their daily activities, of course, but I think you could construct a great argument that the IETF has more impact on world politics (or, let's say, the governments of the world) than the NRA. Everyone knows the NRA is taking an absolutist give-everyone-an-AR-15 stance; they work very hard on it, but at this point they're almost an anchor. Some parts of the US give easy access to guns, and they're going to do so regardless. Other parts (NYC, where I live) make it very hard to access guns, and the NRA isn't able to do much more. And the rest of the world doesn't care. Meanwhile, the IETF, in how it chooses to distribute power to network operators vs. service providers vs. end users, which protocols it facilitates standardization work on, who is in the room, what sorts of threats cryptographic protocols protect against, etc., has a lot of influence on who has power over digital communications. I think I'd even argue that it's more important for someone at the IETF to be aware of the political implications of their work than someone at the NRA. The NRA has an obviously political mission; whether you choose to pay attention to it in how you do your job and what you prioritize or not, you're going to further that mission. (Imagine, for instance, being a gun-control advocate at the NRA and see how much impact you'll have.) The IETF's mission is more open-ended, which means you can develop protocols to facilitate government surveillance or to subvert it, depending on what you think is more important.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  >I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). The Far Left and the Far Right, and college activists everywhere, tend to agree with this statement. Everyone else finds the idea of a forced battle, which is what you said entails, to be the beginnings of authoritarianism (or bullying if taken at an individual level).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dangerface 6y ago
  > How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? These are issues with consumers and state not the business.
- dangerface 6y ago
  > I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics This is a Kafka trap
- bredren 6y ago
  I think this is the premise of of The Witcher series.
- thinkloop 6y ago
  When companies say they are being apolitical they mean more narrowly political - ignoring as much as possible the things that do not affect their core business. Does coinbase have to have a declared position for whether there should be a Mexico wall, or gun rights, or abortion - not really. What about BLM or gay rights? They probably have to have some minimal position like "we treat everyone equally", but that's also different than donating to the protests or conversely declaring support for the police union, etc.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lliamander 6y ago
  Apolitical doesn't just mean "supporting the status quo". It can mean "improving the world along a particular dimension with a coalition that cuts across historic factions". That's what Coinbase is trying to do, and (for example) open source has historically been. Making a workplace political means excluding people who believe in the mission but don't share your views on things irrelevant to that mission. This is dumb for a couple reasons: * you've now hamstrung the mission your organization was ostensibly about * the people you excluded are still out there. Even if you no longer have to work with them, you do have to share a society with them. And now they're going to form their own organizations and become more polarized. It may be a cost worth bearing in some circumstances, but generally you want to keep the number of people excluded in this manner to a minimum.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- RestlessMind 6y ago
  > How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? I can see why a company might want to engage in a little bit of politics, particularly when it is tied to its very own existence. But that doesn't mean it should be engaging in all kinds of politics at all the times. So we are talking about "truly apolitical" vs "mostly apolitical" vs "not at all apolitical". It seems Coinbase wants to be "mostly apolitical" here.
- vidarh 6y ago
  Indeed, the choice to "be apolitical" is itself a political choice.
- ballenf 6y ago
  All these arguments just feel like people wanting the benefits of owning a company without doing the work or taking the risk. When you accept employment at a company, you do so on their terms -- including whether political activism on the job is permitted. If you want to set the terms of employment, start or buy a company. Or, I guess, get laws passed that outlaw companies from having a policy you disagree with. Whether being apolitical is itself political or not is a circular argument -- for some it is, for some it isn't. And that difference is itself a difference of political opinion of the same kind as the others.
- Aunche 6y ago
  > How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? Coinbase didn't say they would be neutral about all issues, just issues that aren't related to their business. Obviously if the government wants to ban cryptocurrency, they're going to lobby against it.
- lordlimecat 6y ago
  This is a blog about the company's direction, not about whether it will perfectly conform to the ideals laid out. The CEO is not claiming that they are apolitical, but that that is their goal. >Politics is ultimately about how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society, An organization can be apolitical in which clients it takes, how it applies its agreements and rules, and its involvement in the campaign process. >How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? They do not need to take a stance on law circumvention or the right to privacy other than to uphold the law and maximize customer value.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > They do not need to take a stance on law circumvention or the right to privacy other than to uphold the law and maximize customer value. The products and tools and services they sell are specifically designed to permit the circumvention of the law. They are no different than people who make lockpicks in that respect. Technically the company couldn't care less what you do with the lockpicks. Maybe you're a hobbyist, or a locksmith. Maybe. Some of their employees may be okay looking the other way, but not all of them will be. Based on the way this is going down it sounds like there was some internal drama about this, and they feel like it's best to part ways with the pro-law crowd.
    - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      What products are specifically designed to permit the circumvention of the law?
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Cryptocurrencies.
- deeeeplearning 6y ago
  >I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical Well frankly you and many others in this country are morons. The past few years are evidence of that.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Personal attacks aren't welcome here.
- knorker 6y ago
  That's one way to see it. But it seems the general trend is that every company needs to be political on every issue. Where employees seem to spend more time on social justice than building the product the company is selling.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  > I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). This is a fairly untenable position. Suppose there is an alien civilization somewhere with a similarly complex organization as our own society. You have no stake or opinions in the outcomes of what they do. You might even have beliefs that might give rise to politics ("I don't want earth destroyed," for instance), but in a real sense, you are apolitical with respect to that civilization. That doesn't make you in favor of the status quo, it just means that you don't know or care what's going on there. Bringing it closer to home, you'll realize that you have similar apolitical beliefs with respect to a small town in a neighboring country, or maybe the government policy of the Central African Republic. You might object that in these cases, a person is by construction unaware of the goings-on in distant places; however, I think the contrary argument is more absurd. The contrary argument is that as soon as someone merely knows about a political issue, she is then forced to choose, without her consent, that she is in favor of the status quo. That's not a tenable way to treat people with respect, not to mention organize society. And loads of people intentionally ignore the goings-on in politics. So then, if people can be apolitical about certain or even most issues, certainly someone could be apolitical about all but the most mundane issues (like the governance of a family). Further, the status quo is not a political issue; it's the condition of living in some reality. Human collective action is only one component that shapes our status quo. Many are beyond human control. So the mere existence of a status quo does not imply that anyone "chooses" it. That I think is the error. A person can have no opinion and withdraw from politics. That is apolitical. Constructing the concept in such a way that forces them to pick a side of a line in the sand excludes the middle ground, and is also profoundly disrespectful and unfair.
vaccinator 6y ago
https://us.123rf.com/450wm/robson309/robson3092002/robson309200200036/140083706-united-states-one-dollar-bill-reverse-side-with-in-god-we-trust-motto-.jpg?ver=6 https://us.123rf.com/450wm/robson309/robson3092002/robson309...
- vaccinator 6y ago
  The separation between government and church in the US is about 0.001inch or basically no centimeter... You'd be lucky if the president doesnt talk about god daily
jpdb 6y ago
> Why is a company wanting to be apolitical is controversial? Because there's really no such thing as, "apolitical." If you offer web-hosting to a group of white nationalists, this is a political action. "Apolitical" is what people who are ok with the status quo use as a dog-whistle to avoid responsibility.
- chii 6y ago
  > If you offer web-hosting to a group of white nationalists, this is a political action. no it's not - you're just offering a service for a fee. As long as the service is not illegal, and you're not under-charging (which can be considered a political donation), then it's apolitical. Deliberately choosing not to conduct business with a certain group because of their political ideology, on the other hand, _is_ a political action.
  - sammex 6y ago
    I don't agree. Selling a gun to a hunter is not the same as selling a gun to a known child murderer. Both is "just" selling a gun but they are very different in practice.
    - hexis 6y ago
      Yes, but this distinction doesn’t require a corporate policy to implement. One transaction is legal and the other is not.
    - ozorOzora 6y ago
      Would you like to mandate background checks for every potential customer?
    - stevehawk 6y ago
      ya, one would be illegal
    - chii 6y ago
      Does your view change if the gun was sold to a republican vs a democrat? Or a communist?
rubyfan 6y ago
This seems to be more prevalent at companies with younger workers and often more associated with tech companies and the West Coast (of the US).
another_sock 6y ago
The West Coast and its inhabitants live in a bit of a unique bubble and assume that the rest of the world see things in the very progressive manner they do, and expect that companies will march in lockstep with this sort of unique bubble. It's a very internalized unrecognized sort of expectation, but that's because so many companies have accepted these expectations completely. The rest of the country doesn't really care about this stuff, but media and tech related companies are disproportionately west coast so it gives an inaccurate picture as to what is going on.
- cashewchoo 6y ago
  I work remotely from the midwest for a CA tech company. I was surprised that other people were surprised that there's a confederate flag spray-painted on a car-sized piece of corrugated steel that's been beside the interstate (on private property) for years now that I see every time I drive between two cities. Similarly the number of confederate flag shirts and, recently facemasks.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "The West Coast and its inhabitants live in a bit of a unique bubble and assume that the rest of the world see things in the very progressive manner they do." That's tarring with rather a broad brush. There are a lot of old school liberals on the west coast who strongly disapprove of the progressives and their behavior, including myself. The progressives' "You are either with us or against us" rhetoric is diametrically opposed to the liberal "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." philosophy.
  - another_sock 6y ago
    Yes and every year those old school liberals get less and less, especially on the West Coast, because they are seen as being right wing as you can tell by the many new normal West Coasters in this thread.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > There are a lot of old school liberals It's kind of funny to hear DLC/Clintonian Third Wayists described as “old-school liberals”, since when they rose to dominance “liberal” in American politics meant about what “progressive” is used for now and they were very much associated with the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, with an economic policy that synced up so well with that of the Republican Party that the period between their rise and the sharp rightward jump of the Republican Party that was a response to the resulting shift of the left edge of the Overton Window became known as the “neoliberal consensus” period in economic policy. The real old-school liberals are the progressives.
dkdk8283 6y ago
I worked at a media company with a reach of 400 million ADI. We had internal meetings more or less instructing employees how to vote. Our hand curated content intentionally catered to this same narrative. It was completely politically biased. I was hired when the company was neutral but over the years the extreme left narrative settled in and we tended to only hire people with the same ideologies. Executive discussions revealed it was an intentional culture shift to attract candidates.
- dgellow 6y ago
  Did it go well for the people and the company?
- sdfqasdghj2 6y ago
  > We had internal meetings more or less instructing employees how to vote. Is that legal?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Yes, unfortunately. Most states don't have any law against employers politically pressuring their employees.
    - lordlimecat 6y ago
      If it can be construed as threatening or coercive, it appears that many actually do: https://www.grubblawgroup.com/employee-rights-and-information-center/whistleblowing-retaliation/retaliation-for-political-activity-state-laws/ https://www.grubblawgroup.com/employee-rights-and-informatio...
- langitbiru 6y ago
  So what does the future hold? Will there be left-leaning companies and right-leaning companies? What if I am centrist? So when I apply for a job, do I have to make sure my political leaning fits with the employer? Brave, brave new world.
eli 6y ago
Forbidding debate is taking an implicit stance in favor of the status quo.
- defertoreptar 6y ago
  Or it's just acknowledging that it can be disruptive and divisive at a place where your goal is to focus and communicate effectively.
- sdfqasdghj2 6y ago
  I don't see this press release as forbidding debate. This is simply saying that the company won't be taking a stance. That shouldn't stop individual employees discussing political topics as long as they can act like adults and not create a hostile environment.
  - seneca 6y ago
    > I don't see this press release as forbidding debate. It specifically does: > We won’t: Debate causes or political candidates internally
    - sdfqasdghj2 6y ago
      Hm. What is the legality of limiting employees speech during e.g. their lunch break time?
- manigandham 6y ago
  No, it's just stating that the workplace is neutral. It's not for or against anything. You can do that on your time instead.
  - yunohn 6y ago
    The homepage of the privacy-focused adtech company you run, highlights California's new Privacy law. Have you considered that this means your workplace has a clear political stance on privacy?
claudeganon 6y ago
> I would expect a government to have proper separation from church and state, so why is it weird to want a company to separate politics and mission Because this is a non sequitur? You’re making appeals to protections enshrined in law to prevent the government from limiting the freedom and rights of individuals, when almost no such protections exist in the workplace. Why do people organize in their workplace? Because there exists no bill of rights for workers to prevent equivalent abuses of corporate power and hierarchy that are ostensibly so tyrannical when done by the government. A better question would be why America has a two-track system of rights, where one must constantly defend their violation from the government, but also completely abandon them the moment they walk into their workplace.
- adambyrtek 6y ago
  > A better question would be why America has a two-track system of rights, where one must constantly defend their violation from the government, but also completely abandon them the moment they walk into their workplace. One argument could be that it's much easier to change jobs than to change citizenship.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    This argument doesn’t address the discrepancy. “I can move from one job, where my boss can fire me for anything I do or say arbitrarily to another where my boss can for me for anything I do or say arbitrarily” does not explain why protection of speech is so important in one context, but not the other. The vast majority of people don’t rely on the government for their immediate material needs, so why should they need so much protection from the government as opposed to the bosses who have this leverage over them?
happytoexplain 6y ago
>Why is a company wanting to be apolitical is controversial? It depends on how extreme the politics of the society are. It only sounds like there's an obviously "right" answer to you because you're used to living your entire life in a society where politics aren't that extreme yet from your point of view. But for many other people, the line was crossed in recent years.
- dangerface 6y ago
  > It depends on how extreme the politics of the society are. I live in Northern Ireland the politics of my society are very extreme when its allowed in the workplace, group A kills group B and vice versa. Calling out the extremists and forcing them to apolitical in the work place is necessary to stop them from killing every one. You can argue that this is a call for centrism and the status quo and it is, but it makes sense for this to be the status quo simply because extremists like to kill anyone that doesn't agree with their politics, this is true across history, country and race. There is an obvious right answer because I have seen what happens when extremism is made the status quo.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
adamzapasnik 6y ago
I think it used to be like that? My dad taught me not to talk about politics nor religion in a workplace. I think it's for the best.
- sdfqasdghj2 6y ago
  It's sad. We ought to be able to debate important topics without people getting upset and emotional and ruining each others lives.
  - ukd1 6y ago
    I read the original post from Brian as; you can, but at work one should work. Coinbase isn't paying folks to debate politics, they're paying someone to further the company mission.
  - rhino369 6y ago
    You can do that anywhere. Just don’t do it with a captive audience. And the people most inclined to discuss politics in the work place tend to be the people who take it personally.
  - ledauphin 6y ago
    this is undoubtedly true, but also undoubtedly easier said than done. we don't seem to be wired as a species to have difficult conversations without feeling emotions amd having those emotions affect our relationships.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  I think all of the people (in this thread, and at Coinbase, and at Amazon, etc.) could use a reminder that opening the door to politics in the workplace includes open support for, say, Donald Trump, too.
  - hejja 6y ago
    in a perfect world it would. but it doesn't.
swiley 6y ago
This doesn't sound like an apolitical mission to me, in fact it sounds like quite the opposite. They're doing their absolute best to eliminate potential traitors.
Vosporos 6y ago
> Why is a company wanting to be apolitical is controversial? The fact that a company can emancipate itself from the political scene is nothing but a libertarian fantasy. And the fact that professional lobbyists exist show that they do influence the political life of a country.
helen___keller 6y ago
My 2c: * Companies, like the rest of the world, are now hyperconnected. We have slack and email and so on. This makes it a lot easier for similar interests to connect across a massive organization, which is a boon for special interest groups, like anime, or magic the gathering. Or politics. * Companies muscle in on workers' identity. Workers respond to work over email/slack during their off hours. Workers pop open the laptop at home, even pre-covid. Companies try to justify this with a sense of pride, you should be PROUD to work for the great conglomerate XYZ. And guess what? If I'm proud to work for XYZ, as a worker I'm going to expect a consistent worldview that XYZ is aligned with my values. But my values are also tied up in my politics, so now I'm expecting my workplace's values to be consistent with my politics. * The simple fact is that many companies are overwhelmingly a monoculture in terms of politics. It's easier to make your workplace political when 90% or 85% of employees are liberal anyways, as opposed to say 60%. This is largely a demographic thing, at many companies the target demographic for hiring is a strong overlap with certain political ideology (You are looking to hire a young, 25 year old computer scientist living in a big blue city who graduated from PresigiousUniversity. What politics do you think this person likely subscribes to?).
- solidasparagus 6y ago
  > You are looking to hire a young, 25 year old computer scientist living in a big blue city who graduated from PresigiousUniversity. What politics do you think this person likely subscribes to? I think people too readily assume that these people are blue, but you have to remember that academia (and tech in general) tends to have strong social pressure to either be blue or hide your political beliefs. There is likely a very large contingent of closet republicans.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    And we have to remember that even the categories here are highly artificial; even people who'd never describe themselves as closet Republicans don't necessarily agree with whatever specific aspect of politics a company might try to target. There are a couple of California ballot propositions I have in mind where polling is very divergent from what you'd expect reading any kind of public discussion about them.
dmos62 6y ago
If a person refuses to be political (e.g. vote), that's stygmatized, because it's irresponsible. The same should hold for a group of people (like a company).
hooande 6y ago
The issue here is that the company HAD a political mission, and decided to change that. Some employees may have joined specifically because of the company's politics and now they can leave. Church and state are separate because you don't get to choose your birth citizenship. But you do get to choose where you you seek employment. As long as the company is upfront about their politics when you take the job, it's up to you to decide to work there. ie, don't take a job at a christian bookstore if you aren't christian
DSingularity 6y ago
You can’t operate in a liberal society (liberal in the sense that we favor human liberty and freedom) and demand that your employees suppress their opinions. It’s a contradiction.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  Except that every company that's taken a political stance has demanded that their employees suppress their opinions, unless those opinions are extreme left-wing opinions.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Define "extreme left." Do you mean stalinism or maoism? Are these companies in favor of exterminating the aristocracy through lethal force? Do you mean marxism? Are these companies that are in favor of peacefully gifting their workers with the means of production, and equalizing pay for all employees? Show me these leftist corporations. Or are you referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent Supreme Court rulings as the "extreme left"? Or do you mean it in the Fox News sense, where any disagreement with the president is "extreme left"?
    - username90 6y ago
      Equality of outcome is extreme left, California subscribes to it pretty hard. The left we have in Europe are much saner.
      - klyrs 6y ago
        Europe is a pretty diverse legal landscape, but it looks like quite a few countries there have had affirmative action for over a decade. Is California extreme or is it somewhat more progressive? Because I consider Stalin, Mao, etc. to be the extreme left and California to be extremely conservative by comparison. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
ForHackernews 6y ago
Coinbase is not "apolitical". Proof-of-work cryptocurrency is an explicitly libertarian political project and an environmental disaster. This is just the boring old dodge that "politics I agree with is apolitical, why are you being so controversial!"
geofft 6y ago
Coinbase is a deeply political company already. Here are some political claims that they support that are not universally agreed upon: - Cryptocurrencies are good and should be legal. - Private ownership of unrestricted amounts of capital is good. - Central banks controlling the money supply are bad. - The ability to send and receive money across borders and avoid capital controls is, in general, good. - The existence of corporations is good. - Venture capital is good, as is making money for the stock exchange. - Reporting large amounts of customer information to federal tax agencies is bad and should be fought in court. - Spying on individuals on behalf of governments with poor human rights records is bad, and moreover, having supported this work makes you ineligible to be an employee. (This is new as of March 2019; previously, the company did not have a position here.) Now, these are entirely reasonable positions to take (in the sense that they're well within the Overton window, at least in the US), but they're absolutely political positions! (If it helps, note that the negation of all of these is a political claim.) I'd understand the argument if it's something like "I don't want my company to mandate that I support expanded bike lanes on Market St." or whatever, but it's very silly to pretend that a company doesn't have a mission in the world or that its mission doesn't have political aspects. If you don't agree that cryptocurrency is making a positive difference in the world, why are you even there? (And even so, I think it would be entirely rational for the company to say, "It's okay if individual employees disagree, but as a company, expanded bike lanes on Market St. is important to our business because it's how half the company commutes to work.")
quesera 6y ago
Some people would argue that -- in some exceptional circumstances -- claiming "apolitical" is the equivalent of Switzerland's "neutrality" in WWII.
Reedx 6y ago
> Why is a company wanting to be apolitical is controversial? It's wild. That was standard not long ago. Most companies, even in tech, were apolitical. Maybe there would be some watercooler chat near the election with that one coworker who was really into politics, but that was about it. People mostly didn't know or care what the politics of their coworkers were. If they did, it wasn't a big deal and would still be friendly regardless. But now many are convinced they are warriors in a never-ending existential war. Then it's hard to understand why someone isn't a warrior. "We're about to die! What are you doing, not fighting? You must choose a side. You're with us or against us!" Normally this happened on a 4 year cadence[1]. Locusts would descend to rally the troops, warn of impending doom, have the battle (vote), and then go hibernate for a few years. But now it's non-stop. The war just never ends. It bleeds into everything. Those who choose to not participate in the war or don't engage in the approved way are looked at with suspicion, accused of being the enemy. 1. https://benlandautaylor.com/2018/09/22/the-four-year-locusts/ https://benlandautaylor.com/2018/09/22/the-four-year-locusts...
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Just before the 2016 election, we issued an internal memo that political and/or religious conversations were not appropriate. Not a RULE, but guidance that it can be divisive and that folks should concentrate on work during work hours, whilst physically at work. One person quit as a result - and, frankly, everyone was relieved. She was a hateful person that wouldn't shut up about her politics. I agree - it's crazy that this is controversial. We are a much stronger and more unified company as a result of this policy.
- mic_stee 6y ago
  I agree that it is wild that wanting to be "apolitical" is controversial. Sadly though, I think that it has become almost impossible to be "apolitical" due to how politics has creeped into every facet of life. What is more wild to me is that statements like "black lives matter", "climate change is real and a problem", and "the coronavirus pandemic is real" are political. These seem like they should be commonly agreed upon facts. If those statements are political then it is much harder to be apolitical.
dkural 6y ago
When one guy is hitting another one in the head, a "this is not my concern" stance tends to benefit the guy doing the hitting.
RIMR 6y ago
Because running a business is a way we participate in society, and society is run by politics, so being "apolitical" as a company feels like a willful ignoring of the social consequences of your business practices. You cannot separate the business practices of a financial institution from politics. It simply isn't possible. To attempt to do so is a political statement in an of itself, and quite frankly, it isn't a good one.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
The replies to your comment exemplify Coinbase’s delicate position, or more specifically why you can’t be apolitical while physically located in a monoculture like the Bay Area. Outside of the monoculture, it’s actually extremely easy to be apolitical at work and people seem to get along despite extremely different personal views of each other (for example, being non-Mormon in Salt Lake City).
thescriptkiddie 6y ago
Companies are inherently political. If nothing else they support capitalism and oppose taxation and worker's rights.
trident1000 6y ago
We essentially have terrorist organizations like the ACLU that hound companies until they meet their demands. Thats a primary reason why.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

wwright 6y ago

I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). Politics is ultimately about how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society, not just which “party” you like. The very act of being a company is very relative to the laws and regulations your country has, which are of course determined by politics. Coinbase is specifically a company about cryptocurrency. Crypto is directly related to a how governments manage their own currency, the right to privacy, law circumvention (see Alpha Bay), and so on. How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do?

GoblinSlayer 6y ago
Should toilets be political too? Which would you use?
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Toilets are political which is why certain places have moved to uni-sex toilets.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    I mean the porcelain friend specifically. Which party symbols should it be ordained with?
chii 6y ago
> you can’t truly be apolitical; that's one of those "you're either with us or against us" type of deal - which is not the right way to deal with anything imho. You _can_ be apolitical - as in, you do not let your political views affect what you do. You keep your political views private. You do not try to change anyone else's political views as part of your job.
- rmc 6y ago
  I think the issue is “How do you decide what is political and what isn't?” e.g. if you're a communist, then the existence is shareholders is political support for capitalism. So how do you remain “apolitical” then?
  - chii 6y ago
    > So how do you remain “apolitical” then? Outside of your job, you can be as politically active as you wish. Nobody is saying you should stop all political activism. But if i walk into a store intending to buy something, i don't want to be blasted with any political message or be asked to sign up for a rally or donate to some cause i don't care about. And an employee should work on the job they are being hired to do, not spend work time undertaking political activism unless explicitly allowed by their boss (for example, your company may allow you time off for charity or such activities). If, for example, your political view is that of communism, then you will have to suffer in silence in the USA while working for shareholders/owners of property. Or quit your job if you cannot stand it. What you can't do is use your job as a resource to push that view further than you could on your own.
    - throwaway936482 6y ago
      So that's unions out then. Sounds like a political stance to me if you ban people from advocating for collective bargaining in the workplace.
      - chii 6y ago
        collective bargaining starts at the level of government - not within the workplace. It would obviously be in the interest of the employer to stop it from starting up. So you take this political stance outside of work. If enough people can be convinced that collective bargaining is a good idea, it will get enshrined into law. Employers will have to comply. On the other hand, organising during work time (which is being paid for by your employer) is unethical - and regardless of my feelings of the idea of collective bargaining, it should not be done on someone else's dime.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
celticninja 6y ago
certain roles require you to be apolitical, i'm thinking of employees of a national civil service whose role is to implement policy not decide it. If you had to quit when a party you didnt support was in power it would cause huge problems for continuity of services. Essentially then the civil service becomes political, which is really what it should not be.
pracer 6y ago
You are confusing people with companies. A person is political, a company should not. Otherwise, you are siding with totalitarian regimes that decide which services or rights you have based on what you think or believe. It was tried in the past, good luck for that.
- Nursie 6y ago
  When things like climate science have been turned into political issues, this is next to impossible.
username90 6y ago
> I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). If someone just does their job with people no matter who they are then they are not political. Being gay is not political. Being trans is not political. Being black is not political. Saying that gays/trans/black people shouldn't exist or doesn't belong is political. Saying that everyone needs to care about gay/trans/black rights is political. A trans person and a fundamental Christian who works well together without bringing up either political stance are not political. If the fundamental Christian makes a fuzz then he is political and should be reprimanded. If the trans person digs into the Christians opinions until they find something to get angry about and then get angry they are political. I don't see why this is concept would be so hard to understand.
- BoiledCabbage 6y ago
  > If someone just does their job with people no matter who they are then they are not political. And what happens when it's not the case? When people don't just treat people of foo group normally, and it's happening throughout the company? What should foo group do? Ask the company to get to an apolitical state where they can just do their job? Let people in the company know that it's going on? By you definition, that's political and wrong. Or do they just bear the cost of it while others continue doing what they're doing? > I don't see why this is concept would be so hard to understand Because (In my opinion) you're starting with a fundamentally flawed premise that there isn't already politics in the work place. There always has been. The important difference is that the only thing that gets branded as "politics" is anything different from the status quo. If it's politics aligned with the status quo it's not seen as politics even when it it. A similar example. I'm not taking a stand on it in any way here, but kneeling during the national anthem before a football game was considered a political act (which it is). One response was "keep politics out of football" (parallel to our discussion here). But again similar to our discussion here it was glossing over the fact that playing the national anthem before a sporting event is an extremely political action to begin with (ex. Should we play the national anthem before a game of Jeopardy?). Saying there wasn't politics before / by default, is just turning a blind eye to the existing politics because it's the status quo.
cblconfederate 6y ago
it's correct that crypto is against all politics, and thus coinbase is de facto far-libertarian, or anarchocapitalist. That doesn't prevent it from creating "an apolitical culture" in their workplace. Just like how , today , a libertarian might work for the Fed or something. I thought their point is that the politics of individual workers won't distract from the company's "mission" (whatever that is, i assume it's the product). that said i think it's wrong to ascribe political motives to every move and claim that nobody can be a-political in public. Political belongs to the public sphere and not everyone wants to live in there.
vowelless 6y ago
> Politics is ultimately about how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society, It is so sad that people increasingly have this view. Politics was never how “we engaged and collaborated in society”.
- clinta 6y ago
  Politics is discussing when it is justified and appropriate to use violence. For enforcing laws, collecting taxes ect... All peaceful human interaction falls outside of that.
  - Loughla 6y ago
    I legitimately do not understand defining collecting taxes as violence. That's like the third time I've seen this type of argument on HN. I don't get it. Can you please explain that to me?
    - jacobr1 6y ago
      Most tax collection is completed without violence in practical sense. But taxes are backed by the threat of violence. If you don't pay them, you can be charged with a crime and ultimately imprisoned. And if you try to resist imprisonment that is enforced with armed agents of the state who will use force to compel you. Taxes aren't voluntary. This is an old libertarian argument, which when taken to its narrow logical conclusion says all taxes are fundamentally theft and immoral. The primary counter-argument is to suggest that the property or wages being taxed aren't "fully" the possessions of the taxed individual or entity. If you are receiving wages in part because of the state apparatus, then the wages weren't fully yours to begin with. Various forms of social contract theory are used to justify taxes. The other main argument is probably more utilitarian. Your right to property only extends to the extent that it is socially valuable in comparison to other rights and responsibilities. Property is this model isn't a fundamental right, but one mechanism used in combinations with others to maximize human welfare.
      - throwaways885 6y ago
Allower 6y ago
If you don't know how to separate social issues from politics, well shit, that's the whole problem isn't it. Figure it out or continue being a moron dragging civilization back into the dark ages.
mc32 6y ago
Politics is too personal and can only lead to discord among employees. There is little upside to politics being in the open in an established company. It may be useful in attracting talent at some point, but at another point it becomes a liability, unless your company is a PAC or something of the sort. If you serve a wide audience or have a wide workforce, it’s less headache if workers separate their politics from their work unless the employer is paying you to be political.
- philipov 6y ago
  Yes, and choosing to have such a policy about political discussion is a political act that supports the status quo by quashing dissent. Therefore, many people who are not happy with the status quo are upset by companies that do this.
  - mc32 6y ago
    I don’t want to have to manoeuver and tiptoe around shit all day long. I don’t want to have to think about whom I might unwittingly offend today because of something that happened yesterday that I’m unawares of today. I’m not seeking to offend anyone, but I also don’t want have keep a twitterpulse of what’s woke today vs yesterday. I want a predictable workplace where people understand we’re not perfect and sometimes make untacful remarks without meaning to hurt. I want a forgiving workplace one where minor peccadilloes aren’t picked apart by vultures looking to score points. There are big issues we can agree on. Energy, climate, crime, justice, etc., from a big picture perspective rather than an activist perspective. Activism is tiring. People get exhausted. Long term, people just want to make a living and be left alone if they are not being negative. You can’t live in a world where activism is a way of life like Cuba. Listen to the “Commandant” brother no 1. We have to up bread production right after we recite the revolutionary manifesto one more time before we join hands in community work for the revolution”. No, let me be in peace.
    - bluntfang 6y ago
      >I want a predictable workplace where people understand we’re not perfect and sometimes make untacful remarks without meaning to hurt. I want a forgiving workplace one where minor peccadilloes aren’t picked apart by vultures looking to score points. Just going off this one statement, if you want a forgiving workplace, does that mean you have to own your mistakes and ask for forgiveness when you make an "untactful remark"? It sounds like seeking forgiveness will require you to do things like "think[ing] about whom I might unwittingly offend today because of something that happened yesterday that I’m unawares of today."
jwalton 6y ago
> How can they truly be neutral on all these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? They most definitely will not be neutral on policy decisions that affect their business, and if you go read their blog post they said exactly that: > 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.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
> claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). sure if someone says that they believe drug use should not be criminalized but also claim to be apolitical and do nothing to help make drug use legal, it follows that they are supporting the status quo of actually keeping drug use illegal. However if that status quo is changed by the actions of others who do want drug use to be legalized and the apolitical person does nothing to try to oppose this new status quo it can be reasonably assumed that they were in fact apolitical. Then you might say that their politics is to support the Status quo, but that is probably only in regards to the things they don't care strongly enough about to do anything about one way or another. Which is the case with most people. Most people throughout history have been apolitical in this way - if you give them something to decide regarding an issue they have no strong opinions on they will most likely do nothing and let the status quo prevail.
shireboy 6y ago
The original post specifically said they would be involved in things directly related to their mission. So conceivably they would be involved in privacy, currency, etc. What I think they are opting out of is the pressure on businesses and individuals to support every cause du jur or denounce the latest fad outrage. While you can't be apolitical, you can be measured, polite, balanced, and recognize there is an appropriate time and place for everything. You can recognize that there is only time and energy for so many things. You can also recognize that much of politics is manufactured outrage and theater. Opting out of all of the daily outrage cycle as a business or individual in favor of contemplative attention to things that truly matter to you on a 10 to 15 year scale seems like a very reasonable approach to me. Claiming that people doing so "support the status quo" or "if you're not with us you're against us" is groupthink and coercive at best, and a mob mentality at worst.
Igelau 6y ago
I know I posted it recently and it was poorly received, but it needs to be repeated because people forget. > Politics: > the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power. If you think it means: > how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society You're biting at a hook baited with identity politics. That's a curated opinion that politicians are glad you've accepted because it's choked you from imagining that apolitical positions exist. It's absolutely possible to be apolitical. It may be hard to do so. It may be possible to claim to be "apolitical" in a way that gains political leverage. That's dishonesty and it's a different topic.
conistonwater 6y ago
Like that famous song, "Don't say he's hypocritical, say rather that he's apolitical. 'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down, that's not my department', says Wernher von Braun."
dcolkitt 6y ago
> I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics This seems like a fallacy. X may be undesirable, but it's impossible to completely rid ourselves of X. Therefore it's pointless to even worry about reducing X. Thermodynamics tells us that we can't ever reach absolute zero. Therefore I don't have to put the groceries away in the refrigerator. No person or organization can be completely apolitical, but they can aim to be minimally political. And that difference is substantial. Only a maximal postmodernist would dispute that the NRA is orders of magnitude more political than the IETF. Similarly we strive for our courts to be free of bias. However jurists are flesh and blood. They'll get hungry or sleep and that will affect their mood. Yet we'd all be horrified if a judge openly declared "Ya know what? I hate Dutch-Americans and plan to rule against them in every case regardless of the facts"
- geofft 6y ago
  I think the analogy works the other way. Thermodynamics, like politics, is a thing we can't be rid of. Therefore, even if you don't care about the exact temperature of your groceries, put them in the fridge. If you have a bag of fresh bread, milk, and frozen meat, it's a lot better to stick the whole bag in the fridge than leave the whole bag in the counter. Obviously it would be even better to put them away properly, but if you want to not care as much as possible, you still have to care a little bit. There's no way to avoid it completely, and ignoring it doesn't make it go away and is certainly not meritorious. The NRA is "more political" in the sense of their daily activities, of course, but I think you could construct a great argument that the IETF has more impact on world politics (or, let's say, the governments of the world) than the NRA. Everyone knows the NRA is taking an absolutist give-everyone-an-AR-15 stance; they work very hard on it, but at this point they're almost an anchor. Some parts of the US give easy access to guns, and they're going to do so regardless. Other parts (NYC, where I live) make it very hard to access guns, and the NRA isn't able to do much more. And the rest of the world doesn't care. Meanwhile, the IETF, in how it chooses to distribute power to network operators vs. service providers vs. end users, which protocols it facilitates standardization work on, who is in the room, what sorts of threats cryptographic protocols protect against, etc., has a lot of influence on who has power over digital communications. I think I'd even argue that it's more important for someone at the IETF to be aware of the political implications of their work than someone at the NRA. The NRA has an obviously political mission; whether you choose to pay attention to it in how you do your job and what you prioritize or not, you're going to further that mission. (Imagine, for instance, being a gun-control advocate at the NRA and see how much impact you'll have.) The IETF's mission is more open-ended, which means you can develop protocols to facilitate government surveillance or to subvert it, depending on what you think is more important.
mancerayder 6y ago
>I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). The Far Left and the Far Right, and college activists everywhere, tend to agree with this statement. Everyone else finds the idea of a forced battle, which is what you said entails, to be the beginnings of authoritarianism (or bullying if taken at an individual level).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dangerface 6y ago
> How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? These are issues with consumers and state not the business.
dangerface 6y ago
> I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics This is a Kafka trap
bredren 6y ago
I think this is the premise of of The Witcher series.
thinkloop 6y ago
When companies say they are being apolitical they mean more narrowly political - ignoring as much as possible the things that do not affect their core business. Does coinbase have to have a declared position for whether there should be a Mexico wall, or gun rights, or abortion - not really. What about BLM or gay rights? They probably have to have some minimal position like "we treat everyone equally", but that's also different than donating to the protests or conversely declaring support for the police union, etc.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lliamander 6y ago
Apolitical doesn't just mean "supporting the status quo". It can mean "improving the world along a particular dimension with a coalition that cuts across historic factions". That's what Coinbase is trying to do, and (for example) open source has historically been. Making a workplace political means excluding people who believe in the mission but don't share your views on things irrelevant to that mission. This is dumb for a couple reasons: * you've now hamstrung the mission your organization was ostensibly about * the people you excluded are still out there. Even if you no longer have to work with them, you do have to share a society with them. And now they're going to form their own organizations and become more polarized. It may be a cost worth bearing in some circumstances, but generally you want to keep the number of people excluded in this manner to a minimum.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
RestlessMind 6y ago
> How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? I can see why a company might want to engage in a little bit of politics, particularly when it is tied to its very own existence. But that doesn't mean it should be engaging in all kinds of politics at all the times. So we are talking about "truly apolitical" vs "mostly apolitical" vs "not at all apolitical". It seems Coinbase wants to be "mostly apolitical" here.
vidarh 6y ago
Indeed, the choice to "be apolitical" is itself a political choice.
ballenf 6y ago
All these arguments just feel like people wanting the benefits of owning a company without doing the work or taking the risk. When you accept employment at a company, you do so on their terms -- including whether political activism on the job is permitted. If you want to set the terms of employment, start or buy a company. Or, I guess, get laws passed that outlaw companies from having a policy you disagree with. Whether being apolitical is itself political or not is a circular argument -- for some it is, for some it isn't. And that difference is itself a difference of political opinion of the same kind as the others.
Aunche 6y ago
> How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? Coinbase didn't say they would be neutral about all issues, just issues that aren't related to their business. Obviously if the government wants to ban cryptocurrency, they're going to lobby against it.
lordlimecat 6y ago
This is a blog about the company's direction, not about whether it will perfectly conform to the ideals laid out. The CEO is not claiming that they are apolitical, but that that is their goal. >Politics is ultimately about how we engage and collaborate with each other as a society, An organization can be apolitical in which clients it takes, how it applies its agreements and rules, and its involvement in the campaign process. >How can they truly be neutral on all of these issues that are directly relevant to the business they do? They do not need to take a stance on law circumvention or the right to privacy other than to uphold the law and maximize customer value.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > They do not need to take a stance on law circumvention or the right to privacy other than to uphold the law and maximize customer value. The products and tools and services they sell are specifically designed to permit the circumvention of the law. They are no different than people who make lockpicks in that respect. Technically the company couldn't care less what you do with the lockpicks. Maybe you're a hobbyist, or a locksmith. Maybe. Some of their employees may be okay looking the other way, but not all of them will be. Based on the way this is going down it sounds like there was some internal drama about this, and they feel like it's best to part ways with the pro-law crowd.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    What products are specifically designed to permit the circumvention of the law?
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Cryptocurrencies.
deeeeplearning 6y ago
>I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical Well frankly you and many others in this country are morons. The past few years are evidence of that.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Personal attacks aren't welcome here.
knorker 6y ago
That's one way to see it. But it seems the general trend is that every company needs to be political on every issue. Where employees seem to spend more time on social justice than building the product the company is selling.
baryphonic 6y ago
> I (and many others) are of the opinion that you can’t truly be apolitical; claiming to be so is its own form of politics (and generally one that supports the status quo). This is a fairly untenable position. Suppose there is an alien civilization somewhere with a similarly complex organization as our own society. You have no stake or opinions in the outcomes of what they do. You might even have beliefs that might give rise to politics ("I don't want earth destroyed," for instance), but in a real sense, you are apolitical with respect to that civilization. That doesn't make you in favor of the status quo, it just means that you don't know or care what's going on there. Bringing it closer to home, you'll realize that you have similar apolitical beliefs with respect to a small town in a neighboring country, or maybe the government policy of the Central African Republic. You might object that in these cases, a person is by construction unaware of the goings-on in distant places; however, I think the contrary argument is more absurd. The contrary argument is that as soon as someone merely knows about a political issue, she is then forced to choose, without her consent, that she is in favor of the status quo. That's not a tenable way to treat people with respect, not to mention organize society. And loads of people intentionally ignore the goings-on in politics. So then, if people can be apolitical about certain or even most issues, certainly someone could be apolitical about all but the most mundane issues (like the governance of a family). Further, the status quo is not a political issue; it's the condition of living in some reality. Human collective action is only one component that shapes our status quo. Many are beyond human control. So the mere existence of a status quo does not imply that anyone "chooses" it. That I think is the error. A person can have no opinion and withdraw from politics. That is apolitical. Constructing the concept in such a way that forces them to pick a side of a line in the sand excludes the middle ground, and is also profoundly disrespectful and unfair.

vaccinator 6y ago

https://us.123rf.com/450wm/robson309/robson3092002/robson309200200036/140083706-united-states-one-dollar-bill-reverse-side-with-in-god-we-trust-motto-.jpg?ver=6 https://us.123rf.com/450wm/robson309/robson3092002/robson309...

vaccinator 6y ago
The separation between government and church in the US is about 0.001inch or basically no centimeter... You'd be lucky if the president doesnt talk about god daily

jpdb 6y ago

> Why is a company wanting to be apolitical is controversial? Because there's really no such thing as, "apolitical." If you offer web-hosting to a group of white nationalists, this is a political action. "Apolitical" is what people who are ok with the status quo use as a dog-whistle to avoid responsibility.

chii 6y ago
> If you offer web-hosting to a group of white nationalists, this is a political action. no it's not - you're just offering a service for a fee. As long as the service is not illegal, and you're not under-charging (which can be considered a political donation), then it's apolitical. Deliberately choosing not to conduct business with a certain group because of their political ideology, on the other hand, _is_ a political action.
- sammex 6y ago
  I don't agree. Selling a gun to a hunter is not the same as selling a gun to a known child murderer. Both is "just" selling a gun but they are very different in practice.
  - hexis 6y ago
    Yes, but this distinction doesn’t require a corporate policy to implement. One transaction is legal and the other is not.
  - ozorOzora 6y ago
    Would you like to mandate background checks for every potential customer?
  - stevehawk 6y ago
    ya, one would be illegal
  - chii 6y ago
    Does your view change if the gun was sold to a republican vs a democrat? Or a communist?

rubyfan 6y ago

This seems to be more prevalent at companies with younger workers and often more associated with tech companies and the West Coast (of the US).

another_sock 6y ago

The West Coast and its inhabitants live in a bit of a unique bubble and assume that the rest of the world see things in the very progressive manner they do, and expect that companies will march in lockstep with this sort of unique bubble. It's a very internalized unrecognized sort of expectation, but that's because so many companies have accepted these expectations completely. The rest of the country doesn't really care about this stuff, but media and tech related companies are disproportionately west coast so it gives an inaccurate picture as to what is going on.

cashewchoo 6y ago
I work remotely from the midwest for a CA tech company. I was surprised that other people were surprised that there's a confederate flag spray-painted on a car-sized piece of corrugated steel that's been beside the interstate (on private property) for years now that I see every time I drive between two cities. Similarly the number of confederate flag shirts and, recently facemasks.
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "The West Coast and its inhabitants live in a bit of a unique bubble and assume that the rest of the world see things in the very progressive manner they do." That's tarring with rather a broad brush. There are a lot of old school liberals on the west coast who strongly disapprove of the progressives and their behavior, including myself. The progressives' "You are either with us or against us" rhetoric is diametrically opposed to the liberal "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." philosophy.
- another_sock 6y ago
  Yes and every year those old school liberals get less and less, especially on the West Coast, because they are seen as being right wing as you can tell by the many new normal West Coasters in this thread.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > There are a lot of old school liberals It's kind of funny to hear DLC/Clintonian Third Wayists described as “old-school liberals”, since when they rose to dominance “liberal” in American politics meant about what “progressive” is used for now and they were very much associated with the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, with an economic policy that synced up so well with that of the Republican Party that the period between their rise and the sharp rightward jump of the Republican Party that was a response to the resulting shift of the left edge of the Overton Window became known as the “neoliberal consensus” period in economic policy. The real old-school liberals are the progressives.

dkdk8283 6y ago

I worked at a media company with a reach of 400 million ADI. We had internal meetings more or less instructing employees how to vote. Our hand curated content intentionally catered to this same narrative. It was completely politically biased. I was hired when the company was neutral but over the years the extreme left narrative settled in and we tended to only hire people with the same ideologies. Executive discussions revealed it was an intentional culture shift to attract candidates.

dgellow 6y ago
Did it go well for the people and the company?
sdfqasdghj2 6y ago
> We had internal meetings more or less instructing employees how to vote. Is that legal?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Yes, unfortunately. Most states don't have any law against employers politically pressuring their employees.
  - lordlimecat 6y ago
    If it can be construed as threatening or coercive, it appears that many actually do: https://www.grubblawgroup.com/employee-rights-and-information-center/whistleblowing-retaliation/retaliation-for-political-activity-state-laws/ https://www.grubblawgroup.com/employee-rights-and-informatio...
langitbiru 6y ago
So what does the future hold? Will there be left-leaning companies and right-leaning companies? What if I am centrist? So when I apply for a job, do I have to make sure my political leaning fits with the employer? Brave, brave new world.

eli 6y ago

Forbidding debate is taking an implicit stance in favor of the status quo.

defertoreptar 6y ago
Or it's just acknowledging that it can be disruptive and divisive at a place where your goal is to focus and communicate effectively.
sdfqasdghj2 6y ago
I don't see this press release as forbidding debate. This is simply saying that the company won't be taking a stance. That shouldn't stop individual employees discussing political topics as long as they can act like adults and not create a hostile environment.
- seneca 6y ago
  > I don't see this press release as forbidding debate. It specifically does: > We won’t: Debate causes or political candidates internally
  - sdfqasdghj2 6y ago
    Hm. What is the legality of limiting employees speech during e.g. their lunch break time?
manigandham 6y ago
No, it's just stating that the workplace is neutral. It's not for or against anything. You can do that on your time instead.
- yunohn 6y ago
  The homepage of the privacy-focused adtech company you run, highlights California's new Privacy law. Have you considered that this means your workplace has a clear political stance on privacy?

claudeganon 6y ago

> I would expect a government to have proper separation from church and state, so why is it weird to want a company to separate politics and mission Because this is a non sequitur? You’re making appeals to protections enshrined in law to prevent the government from limiting the freedom and rights of individuals, when almost no such protections exist in the workplace. Why do people organize in their workplace? Because there exists no bill of rights for workers to prevent equivalent abuses of corporate power and hierarchy that are ostensibly so tyrannical when done by the government. A better question would be why America has a two-track system of rights, where one must constantly defend their violation from the government, but also completely abandon them the moment they walk into their workplace.

adambyrtek 6y ago
> A better question would be why America has a two-track system of rights, where one must constantly defend their violation from the government, but also completely abandon them the moment they walk into their workplace. One argument could be that it's much easier to change jobs than to change citizenship.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  This argument doesn’t address the discrepancy. “I can move from one job, where my boss can fire me for anything I do or say arbitrarily to another where my boss can for me for anything I do or say arbitrarily” does not explain why protection of speech is so important in one context, but not the other. The vast majority of people don’t rely on the government for their immediate material needs, so why should they need so much protection from the government as opposed to the bosses who have this leverage over them?

happytoexplain 6y ago

>Why is a company wanting to be apolitical is controversial? It depends on how extreme the politics of the society are. It only sounds like there's an obviously "right" answer to you because you're used to living your entire life in a society where politics aren't that extreme yet from your point of view. But for many other people, the line was crossed in recent years.

dangerface 6y ago
> It depends on how extreme the politics of the society are. I live in Northern Ireland the politics of my society are very extreme when its allowed in the workplace, group A kills group B and vice versa. Calling out the extremists and forcing them to apolitical in the work place is necessary to stop them from killing every one. You can argue that this is a call for centrism and the status quo and it is, but it makes sense for this to be the status quo simply because extremists like to kill anyone that doesn't agree with their politics, this is true across history, country and race. There is an obvious right answer because I have seen what happens when extremism is made the status quo.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

adamzapasnik 6y ago

I think it used to be like that? My dad taught me not to talk about politics nor religion in a workplace. I think it's for the best.

sdfqasdghj2 6y ago
It's sad. We ought to be able to debate important topics without people getting upset and emotional and ruining each others lives.
- ukd1 6y ago
  I read the original post from Brian as; you can, but at work one should work. Coinbase isn't paying folks to debate politics, they're paying someone to further the company mission.
- rhino369 6y ago
  You can do that anywhere. Just don’t do it with a captive audience. And the people most inclined to discuss politics in the work place tend to be the people who take it personally.
- ledauphin 6y ago
  this is undoubtedly true, but also undoubtedly easier said than done. we don't seem to be wired as a species to have difficult conversations without feeling emotions amd having those emotions affect our relationships.
commandlinefan 6y ago
I think all of the people (in this thread, and at Coinbase, and at Amazon, etc.) could use a reminder that opening the door to politics in the workplace includes open support for, say, Donald Trump, too.
- hejja 6y ago
  in a perfect world it would. but it doesn't.

swiley 6y ago

This doesn't sound like an apolitical mission to me, in fact it sounds like quite the opposite. They're doing their absolute best to eliminate potential traitors.

Vosporos 6y ago

> Why is a company wanting to be apolitical is controversial? The fact that a company can emancipate itself from the political scene is nothing but a libertarian fantasy. And the fact that professional lobbyists exist show that they do influence the political life of a country.

helen___keller 6y ago

My 2c: * Companies, like the rest of the world, are now hyperconnected. We have slack and email and so on. This makes it a lot easier for similar interests to connect across a massive organization, which is a boon for special interest groups, like anime, or magic the gathering. Or politics. * Companies muscle in on workers' identity. Workers respond to work over email/slack during their off hours. Workers pop open the laptop at home, even pre-covid. Companies try to justify this with a sense of pride, you should be PROUD to work for the great conglomerate XYZ. And guess what? If I'm proud to work for XYZ, as a worker I'm going to expect a consistent worldview that XYZ is aligned with my values. But my values are also tied up in my politics, so now I'm expecting my workplace's values to be consistent with my politics. * The simple fact is that many companies are overwhelmingly a monoculture in terms of politics. It's easier to make your workplace political when 90% or 85% of employees are liberal anyways, as opposed to say 60%. This is largely a demographic thing, at many companies the target demographic for hiring is a strong overlap with certain political ideology (You are looking to hire a young, 25 year old computer scientist living in a big blue city who graduated from PresigiousUniversity. What politics do you think this person likely subscribes to?).

solidasparagus 6y ago
> You are looking to hire a young, 25 year old computer scientist living in a big blue city who graduated from PresigiousUniversity. What politics do you think this person likely subscribes to? I think people too readily assume that these people are blue, but you have to remember that academia (and tech in general) tends to have strong social pressure to either be blue or hide your political beliefs. There is likely a very large contingent of closet republicans.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  And we have to remember that even the categories here are highly artificial; even people who'd never describe themselves as closet Republicans don't necessarily agree with whatever specific aspect of politics a company might try to target. There are a couple of California ballot propositions I have in mind where polling is very divergent from what you'd expect reading any kind of public discussion about them.

dmos62 6y ago

If a person refuses to be political (e.g. vote), that's stygmatized, because it's irresponsible. The same should hold for a group of people (like a company).

hooande 6y ago

The issue here is that the company HAD a political mission, and decided to change that. Some employees may have joined specifically because of the company's politics and now they can leave. Church and state are separate because you don't get to choose your birth citizenship. But you do get to choose where you you seek employment. As long as the company is upfront about their politics when you take the job, it's up to you to decide to work there. ie, don't take a job at a christian bookstore if you aren't christian

DSingularity 6y ago

You can’t operate in a liberal society (liberal in the sense that we favor human liberty and freedom) and demand that your employees suppress their opinions. It’s a contradiction.

commandlinefan 6y ago
Except that every company that's taken a political stance has demanded that their employees suppress their opinions, unless those opinions are extreme left-wing opinions.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Define "extreme left." Do you mean stalinism or maoism? Are these companies in favor of exterminating the aristocracy through lethal force? Do you mean marxism? Are these companies that are in favor of peacefully gifting their workers with the means of production, and equalizing pay for all employees? Show me these leftist corporations. Or are you referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent Supreme Court rulings as the "extreme left"? Or do you mean it in the Fox News sense, where any disagreement with the president is "extreme left"?
  - username90 6y ago
    Equality of outcome is extreme left, California subscribes to it pretty hard. The left we have in Europe are much saner.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      Europe is a pretty diverse legal landscape, but it looks like quite a few countries there have had affirmative action for over a decade. Is California extreme or is it somewhat more progressive? Because I consider Stalin, Mao, etc. to be the extreme left and California to be extremely conservative by comparison. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

ForHackernews 6y ago

Coinbase is not "apolitical". Proof-of-work cryptocurrency is an explicitly libertarian political project and an environmental disaster. This is just the boring old dodge that "politics I agree with is apolitical, why are you being so controversial!"

geofft 6y ago

Coinbase is a deeply political company already. Here are some political claims that they support that are not universally agreed upon: - Cryptocurrencies are good and should be legal. - Private ownership of unrestricted amounts of capital is good. - Central banks controlling the money supply are bad. - The ability to send and receive money across borders and avoid capital controls is, in general, good. - The existence of corporations is good. - Venture capital is good, as is making money for the stock exchange. - Reporting large amounts of customer information to federal tax agencies is bad and should be fought in court. - Spying on individuals on behalf of governments with poor human rights records is bad, and moreover, having supported this work makes you ineligible to be an employee. (This is new as of March 2019; previously, the company did not have a position here.) Now, these are entirely reasonable positions to take (in the sense that they're well within the Overton window, at least in the US), but they're absolutely political positions! (If it helps, note that the negation of all of these is a political claim.) I'd understand the argument if it's something like "I don't want my company to mandate that I support expanded bike lanes on Market St." or whatever, but it's very silly to pretend that a company doesn't have a mission in the world or that its mission doesn't have political aspects. If you don't agree that cryptocurrency is making a positive difference in the world, why are you even there? (And even so, I think it would be entirely rational for the company to say, "It's okay if individual employees disagree, but as a company, expanded bike lanes on Market St. is important to our business because it's how half the company commutes to work.")

quesera 6y ago

Some people would argue that -- in some exceptional circumstances -- claiming "apolitical" is the equivalent of Switzerland's "neutrality" in WWII.

Reedx 6y ago

> Why is a company wanting to be apolitical is controversial? It's wild. That was standard not long ago. Most companies, even in tech, were apolitical. Maybe there would be some watercooler chat near the election with that one coworker who was really into politics, but that was about it. People mostly didn't know or care what the politics of their coworkers were. If they did, it wasn't a big deal and would still be friendly regardless. But now many are convinced they are warriors in a never-ending existential war. Then it's hard to understand why someone isn't a warrior. "We're about to die! What are you doing, not fighting? You must choose a side. You're with us or against us!" Normally this happened on a 4 year cadence[1]. Locusts would descend to rally the troops, warn of impending doom, have the battle (vote), and then go hibernate for a few years. But now it's non-stop. The war just never ends. It bleeds into everything. Those who choose to not participate in the war or don't engage in the approved way are looked at with suspicion, accused of being the enemy. 1. https://benlandautaylor.com/2018/09/22/the-four-year-locusts/ https://benlandautaylor.com/2018/09/22/the-four-year-locusts...

koheripbal 6y ago
Just before the 2016 election, we issued an internal memo that political and/or religious conversations were not appropriate. Not a RULE, but guidance that it can be divisive and that folks should concentrate on work during work hours, whilst physically at work. One person quit as a result - and, frankly, everyone was relieved. She was a hateful person that wouldn't shut up about her politics. I agree - it's crazy that this is controversial. We are a much stronger and more unified company as a result of this policy.
mic_stee 6y ago
I agree that it is wild that wanting to be "apolitical" is controversial. Sadly though, I think that it has become almost impossible to be "apolitical" due to how politics has creeped into every facet of life. What is more wild to me is that statements like "black lives matter", "climate change is real and a problem", and "the coronavirus pandemic is real" are political. These seem like they should be commonly agreed upon facts. If those statements are political then it is much harder to be apolitical.

dkural 6y ago

When one guy is hitting another one in the head, a "this is not my concern" stance tends to benefit the guy doing the hitting.

RIMR 6y ago

Because running a business is a way we participate in society, and society is run by politics, so being "apolitical" as a company feels like a willful ignoring of the social consequences of your business practices. You cannot separate the business practices of a financial institution from politics. It simply isn't possible. To attempt to do so is a political statement in an of itself, and quite frankly, it isn't a good one.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

The replies to your comment exemplify Coinbase’s delicate position, or more specifically why you can’t be apolitical while physically located in a monoculture like the Bay Area. Outside of the monoculture, it’s actually extremely easy to be apolitical at work and people seem to get along despite extremely different personal views of each other (for example, being non-Mormon in Salt Lake City).

thescriptkiddie 6y ago

Companies are inherently political. If nothing else they support capitalism and oppose taxation and worker's rights.

trident1000 6y ago

We essentially have terrorist organizations like the ACLU that hound companies until they meet their demands. Thats a primary reason why.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]