5 ms·

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?
- manigandham 6y ago
  Sure, the company provides services that help others comply with regulations and thus favors those regulations. Just like any other corporation that prefers regulations that help drive it's business. Our workplace is still neutral though, and we don't discuss politics. To be extra clear: Whether you're for or against privacy regulations is not relevant. Whether the law is changing and will increase our revenues is relevant. See the difference?
  - yunohn 6y ago
    I see that you think there's a difference. But you've admitted that politics is a topic you discuss. In fact, lots of companies spend money to actively make said laws bend in their favor. The difference is less straightforward than you make it out to be.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Since you consider everything to be political, then everything is politics and there is no discussion without it. It's a tautological inevitability. However there is a difference in that we don't discuss personal opinions on politics. We talk about changes, and whether those changes are good for the business. That's a pretty clear line that you seem to be refusing to accept even though our team understands it perfectly.
      - yunohn 6y ago
        I don't think "everything" is meant to be taken so /literally/. It is your personal opinion on privacy that led to the founding of the company. It is most likely your employees' personal opinions that made them choose to work at your company vs Google or FB's ad divisions. But let's discuss a more relevant political topic. Your name, manigandham, implies you are of Asian origin. The /political/ immigration laws determine your/parents' existence in the USA. If the company you/they worked for was serving/assisting organisations that would invalidate your legal residence, would you not be concerned? Or would you help the project succeed & accept your fate once ICE came knocking?
        manigandham 6y ago
        And yet we don't discuss opinions in the workplace. I don't see why that is so difficult to understand. I caution against making this personal because it's a poor argument and unproductive. But since you asked: I was born in India, legally immigrated to the USA, and am now a naturalized US citizen. I have never feared ICE or any part of the US Government, and fully support legal immigration, strong borders, and proper law enforcement. Corporations do not affect my citizenship or residence, that's a matter of state and law. If I didn't like what a company was doing, I would simply not work for them. None of this requires discussing my political opinions at work. Speech and action are not the same, and nobody is forcing you to work anywhere you don't want to. If you don't like the rules of limited discussion or anything else the company does, then leave. This Coinbase policy is specifically designed to give you a very comfortable exit. What's the problem?
        yunohn 6y ago
        This is a very personal topic, for the people that are being "political". Claiming you no longer care about this, after becoming a naturalized citizen, is a prime example of the "I have mine" philosophy. You would not be able to quit a company while on an immigrant visa, to protest your company's problematic workings. This is not a fair view, and you know that.
        6y ago
eli 6y ago
Blocking even the discussion of change is the definition of conservatism. It's explicitly against change and implicitly for the status quo.
- manigandham 6y ago
  That is not the definition of conservatism, and a limit on discussion is not implicitly for anything. It's your own subjective interpretation if you think it's for the status quo. This isn't complicated. For example: People may be on both sides of climate change, but not discussing it in the workplace doesn't mean the company is for or against anything. Apply this to any other topic that has nothing to do with the business.

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?

manigandham 6y ago
Sure, the company provides services that help others comply with regulations and thus favors those regulations. Just like any other corporation that prefers regulations that help drive it's business. Our workplace is still neutral though, and we don't discuss politics. To be extra clear: Whether you're for or against privacy regulations is not relevant. Whether the law is changing and will increase our revenues is relevant. See the difference?
- yunohn 6y ago
  I see that you think there's a difference. But you've admitted that politics is a topic you discuss. In fact, lots of companies spend money to actively make said laws bend in their favor. The difference is less straightforward than you make it out to be.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Since you consider everything to be political, then everything is politics and there is no discussion without it. It's a tautological inevitability. However there is a difference in that we don't discuss personal opinions on politics. We talk about changes, and whether those changes are good for the business. That's a pretty clear line that you seem to be refusing to accept even though our team understands it perfectly.
    - yunohn 6y ago
      I don't think "everything" is meant to be taken so /literally/. It is your personal opinion on privacy that led to the founding of the company. It is most likely your employees' personal opinions that made them choose to work at your company vs Google or FB's ad divisions. But let's discuss a more relevant political topic. Your name, manigandham, implies you are of Asian origin. The /political/ immigration laws determine your/parents' existence in the USA. If the company you/they worked for was serving/assisting organisations that would invalidate your legal residence, would you not be concerned? Or would you help the project succeed & accept your fate once ICE came knocking?
      - manigandham 6y ago
        And yet we don't discuss opinions in the workplace. I don't see why that is so difficult to understand. I caution against making this personal because it's a poor argument and unproductive. But since you asked: I was born in India, legally immigrated to the USA, and am now a naturalized US citizen. I have never feared ICE or any part of the US Government, and fully support legal immigration, strong borders, and proper law enforcement. Corporations do not affect my citizenship or residence, that's a matter of state and law. If I didn't like what a company was doing, I would simply not work for them. None of this requires discussing my political opinions at work. Speech and action are not the same, and nobody is forcing you to work anywhere you don't want to. If you don't like the rules of limited discussion or anything else the company does, then leave. This Coinbase policy is specifically designed to give you a very comfortable exit. What's the problem?
        yunohn 6y ago
        This is a very personal topic, for the people that are being "political". Claiming you no longer care about this, after becoming a naturalized citizen, is a prime example of the "I have mine" philosophy. You would not be able to quit a company while on an immigrant visa, to protest your company's problematic workings. This is not a fair view, and you know that.
        6y ago

eli 6y ago

Blocking even the discussion of change is the definition of conservatism. It's explicitly against change and implicitly for the status quo.

manigandham 6y ago
That is not the definition of conservatism, and a limit on discussion is not implicitly for anything. It's your own subjective interpretation if you think it's for the status quo. This isn't complicated. For example: People may be on both sides of climate change, but not discussing it in the workplace doesn't mean the company is for or against anything. Apply this to any other topic that has nothing to do with the business.