7 ms·

Well, the whole press release / internal email smells of a company desperately trying to spin what they expect to be a very, very bad article. But this line jum

Well, the whole press release / internal email smells of a company desperately trying to spin what they expect to be a very, very bad article. But this line jumped out at me twice: > To be specific: Although the story will likely allege that a number of Black employees and contractors referenced in the story filed complaints with the company, only three of these people filed complaints during their time at Coinbase. This is the kind of thing that really leads me to distrust everything Coinbase is saying. Reading between the lines, I imagine that the complaints workers claim to have filed were ignored by management at some level of the process, or not filed on the right paperwork or something. And so Coinbase can probably claim on a technicality “they didn’t file a complaint.” But being “technically correct” is only what you reach for when you don’t have any other leg to stand on. It’s a really telling move that they repeated this line multiple times. I’m speculating, obviously. The article isn’t out. But this isn’t my first rodeo, and this kind of corporate speak isn’t new. This kind of desperate spin only serves to underscore the fundamental truths of whatever the NYT is going to publish. Otherwise... why bother dignifying it with such a response?

jimmygrapes 6y ago
It seems to me that Coinbase is well aware of NYT's recent decline from paper of record to race-baiting propaganda, and knows that instead of being factual about numbers NYT will use weasel words to make it seem like Coinbase's entire company is run by "far right extremist racists" or whatever similar language. Of course, only time and the publication of the NYT article will tell, but given their recent track record I would absolutely not be surprised if it's written as an exaggerated hit piece full of emotional appeal rather than, well, news.
- drewbug01 6y ago
  > race-baiting propaganda I think it’s reasonable to debate the quality of the NYT (and I have serious issues with a lot of what they publish - and dear lord, don’t get me started on how I feel about their opinion columnists). But I do think that calling the NYT “race-baiting propaganda” is a gross mischaracterization of what they do.
  - bra-ket 6y ago
    that's exactly what they do though. The entire 'systemic racism' story is complete and utter bullshit and it's been on the NYT front page for the entire summer of BLM riots. It's just another left wing propaganda machine just like WaPo and CNN. They use 'white supremacy' conspiracy to scare people into voting for whoever they want. And if you disagree with them you're automatically 'racist'.
    - drewbug01 6y ago
      I believe that systemic racism exists; and frankly from where I sit it’s not particularly hard to see it. The NYT, Washington Post, and CNN are not widely held to be “left-wing propaganda machines.” That is not a majority opinion in the US, or in the world at large. Your comment saddens me, because I feel an anger and fear in your words, and I wish I could help somehow. All I can say is that what you are alleging is simply untrue, and not supported by facts. It is opinion at best. Please know that the whole world doesn’t hate you, and just because a publication writes words that do not align with your beliefs it does not make them a “propaganda machine.” I cannot meet you further in the middle than this, because I cannot accept conspiracy theories as truth. But I am here to talk if you want to step away from that darkness.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    It's a bit melodramatic to characterize their primary output as race-baiting propaganda However I think it's interesting to compare and contrast how they handled Andrew Sullivan's racist comments from 26 years ago, Sarah Jeong's racist comments from 5-8 years ago, and Quinn Norton's use of slurs around 8 years ago.
    - muglug 6y ago
      I think context is quite important. Andrew Sullivan is notorious for believing in some version of The Bell Curve theory — that differences in academic achievement can be at least partly explained by measurable differences in average intelligence between different races. He promoted that view in his role as editor of a major news magazine in the early 90s. That sets him apart from Quinn Norton, who nevertheless used some racial slurs on early internet message boards. I think her article discussing her friendship with a neo-Nazi was more damaging, though. FWIW I think The Times overreacted there. Sarah Jeong made some bad taste jokes at white people’s expense while being harassed by actual racist trolls. Only the truly cynical would call those tweets racist, when viewed in context.
- muglug 6y ago
  > NYT's recent decline from paper of record to race-baiting propaganda Good newspapers must always speak truth to power. In a country where white people hold virtually all of it, sometimes that means speaking truth to white power. You’re sort of telling on yourself if you find that offensive.
  - nullc 6y ago
    The thing about speaking truth to power is that there are two components to the statement. It isn't met only by attacking a group perceived to be affiliated with "power"-- it also has to involve the truth.
    - jolux 6y ago
      Who's claiming it doesn't have to involve the truth?
      - nullc 6y ago
        jimmygrapes two comments up stated that he believed coinbase expected the NYT would not be "being factual" and that he expected the article "written as an exaggerated hit piece full of emotional appeal rather than, well, news". To which muglug replied extolling the irrefutable virtue of speaking truth to power-- which is an insultingly irrelevant response to someone accusing them of being non-factual.
        muglug 6y ago
        I’m not an expert debater, but if you’re going to accuse an organisation of being race-baiting, it’s always good to at least provide an example or two. Since the commenter didn’t, I sort of zeroed in on that.
        julianmarq 6y ago
        > I sort of zeroed in on that. You didn't. > if you’re going to accuse an organisation of being race-baiting, it’s always good to at least provide an example or two. This is "zeroing in on that". What you first replied is many things, but it is certainly not this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
philtar 6y ago
> Reading between the lines, I imagine that the complaints workers claim to have filed were ignored by management at some level of the process, or not filed on the right paperwork or something. Reading the lines (instead of between them) tells you that two of the complains were investigated by a third-party which found no evidence of wrong-doing.
- jolux 6y ago
  Tells you very little. If you pay a third party to investigate you they have a material interest in not finding wrongdoing and not reporting it if they do find it.
- drewbug01 6y ago
  What you’ve said and what I’ve said are not in conflict. Coinbase clearly states that they believe there to be three complaints and that they’re generally in the clear. My point about reading between the lines is that the explicit, specific repetition of the claim and the way they’re saying it implies that the NYT is going to allege there were more complaints. So then: what of the missing complaints? What Coinbase is saying, essentially, is that whatever else is alleged either didn’t happen (eg, the NYT is outright lying), or that they weren’t really complaints. That’s what I’m getting at. It’s highly unlikely that the NYT is lying. I would be shocked if they did not verify in some way that the complaints alleged were indeed made to Coinbase. And I also do not think that Coinbase would accuse the NYT of lying either. It’s not a particularly defensible position. So - that’s the reading between the lines. To me, the most plausible explanation is that the NYT will allege multiple complaints, and Coinbase is trying to say “no those don’t count.”
  - ericpauley 6y ago
    It seems plausible to me that The Times could use very similar language to "a number of people," and giving 3 examples while implying that the number is far more.
    - drewbug01 6y ago
asveikau 6y ago
> Although the story will likely allege that a number of Black employees and contractors referenced in the story filed complaints with the company, only three of these people filed complaints This is funny in a literal sense because three is most certainly "a number".
underseacables 6y ago
I think you’re being unfair at best, and personally vindictive at worst. As I read, the NYT called them up with threat of a story about discrimination, and gave them 48 hours to investigate the allegations. If someone did that to you, and you had done nothing wrong, it would seem you might say something about this journalist drive-by. If not then perhaps the public might believe the stories, not realizing you were put under the knife of the NYT with 48 hours to respond.
whakim 6y ago
Agreed. The entire post is filled with vague language, such as talking about what the story will "imply". Also, I think it goes without saying that there are plenty of very understandable reasons why people don't file complaints even though they have very legitimate grievances (which allows companies to stand on such technicalities). So we'll see.
- ericpauley 6y ago
  To be fair, The Times is notorious for crafty implication. For the casual reader, these implications can ring far louder than the actual facts, without the piece being false, per se.
  - whakim 6y ago
    Not sure I agree that the NYT is particularly notable in the sense that they're a news organization with a perspective, and that perspective often comes through in the articles they publish. Every news org indirectly implies things in terms of which pieces of evidence they present, what order facts are presented in, what other content they cite etc. I don't think the NYTimes is secretly trying to influence their readers in a crafty or underhanded manner.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - drewbug01 6y ago
    Can you expand on that? Reading through the comment threads on this piece, I’ve noticed this idea of the NYT being intentionally misleading in various forms (“they lie,” “they mislead,” “they make implications,” etc). That isn’t my perception of the NYT at all - but I’d like to hear more of what you’re saying. Has any research been done on the overall veracity of the claims the NYT makes in their articles, or on the ways that they may or may not mislead people through implication?
    - rrdharan 6y ago
disown 6y ago
> underscore the fundamental truths of whatever the NYT I wouldn't ever use the words truth and NYT - especially when it comes to cultural topics. And also geopolitical topics. Or anything of national significance. Or war. You get the idea. > Otherwise... why bother dignifying it with such a response? Why is the NYT writing a hit piece on coinbase? For what reason and what ends? When it comes to propaganda, it always helps to get out in front of the "story". I'm guessing that's what coinbase is doing. I have my own ideas, like everyone else. It's highly likely that both the NYTimes and coinbase are lying or exaggerating or twisting the truth. Certainly neither side is offering any "fundamental truth".
- drewbug01 6y ago
  > I wouldn't ever use the words truth and NYT - especially when it comes to cultural topics. And also geopolitical topics. Or anything of national significance. Or war. You get the idea. Can you expand on that? It feels like you’re saying that the NYT lies (to greatly and possibly incorrectly paraphrase). But I don’t generally believe that to be true; and I haven’t seen much evidence to indicate they’ve been engaged in that kind of behavior. Certainly not often, if at all. > Why is the NYT writing a hit piece on coinbase? > When it comes to propaganda, it always helps to get out in front of the "story". I'm guessing that's what coinbase is doing. Did the NYT write a hit piece on Coinbase? I haven’t read the article yet, since it hasn’t been published. No one has. What I believe to be absolutely true is this: Coinbase desperately wants everyone to believe that it’s a hit piece. That’s obvious from the timing, tone, and things they actually wrote in the letter. But at least in theory, the NYT higher goals and aspirations in life - to uncover and publish truth. Coinbase doesn’t, and they live and die entirely by customers choosing to trust them with their business. They have every rational incentive to fight for you to trust them regardless of whether the NYT piece is true or not. And what if it is true? Whatever it turns out to be (again: it’s not published). To me, when a company launches into this kind of PR Hail Mary, it’s not a sign of integrity.
cma 6y ago
> only three of these people filed complaints during their time at Coinbase. I really hope that's not a corporate way of saying X - 3 number of people filed complaints after they were wrongly terminated.
Hamuko 6y ago
>what they expect to be a very, very bad article Yeah, my first thought reading this was "Exactly how bad is it gonna be if they feel like they need to start damage control even before the article is out?"
antpls 6y ago
> only three of these people filed complaints during their time at Coinbase. "Only"? I'm from EU, and three complaints seem already like a lot for any standard company. Maybe it is different in the US?
aliyfarah 6y ago
>This is the kind of thing that really leads me to distrust everything Coinbase is saying. Reading between the lines, I imagine that the complaints workers claim to have filed were ignored by management at some level of the process, or not filed on the right paperwork or something. You're too kind. I suspect what usually happens: the employee was fired by management soon after hearing some loud rumblings, then the employee filed an official complaint. Filing an official complaint while employed is extremely difficult, you not only have to weigh whether you have a justified complaint, but also expect some tension and possible conflict with your employer. I don't like how Coinbase tried to play off official complaints from fired employees.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
The meaning of „don’t be political at work“ was always „let us be racists in peace“.

jimmygrapes 6y ago

It seems to me that Coinbase is well aware of NYT's recent decline from paper of record to race-baiting propaganda, and knows that instead of being factual about numbers NYT will use weasel words to make it seem like Coinbase's entire company is run by "far right extremist racists" or whatever similar language. Of course, only time and the publication of the NYT article will tell, but given their recent track record I would absolutely not be surprised if it's written as an exaggerated hit piece full of emotional appeal rather than, well, news.

drewbug01 6y ago
> race-baiting propaganda I think it’s reasonable to debate the quality of the NYT (and I have serious issues with a lot of what they publish - and dear lord, don’t get me started on how I feel about their opinion columnists). But I do think that calling the NYT “race-baiting propaganda” is a gross mischaracterization of what they do.
- bra-ket 6y ago
  that's exactly what they do though. The entire 'systemic racism' story is complete and utter bullshit and it's been on the NYT front page for the entire summer of BLM riots. It's just another left wing propaganda machine just like WaPo and CNN. They use 'white supremacy' conspiracy to scare people into voting for whoever they want. And if you disagree with them you're automatically 'racist'.
  - drewbug01 6y ago
    I believe that systemic racism exists; and frankly from where I sit it’s not particularly hard to see it. The NYT, Washington Post, and CNN are not widely held to be “left-wing propaganda machines.” That is not a majority opinion in the US, or in the world at large. Your comment saddens me, because I feel an anger and fear in your words, and I wish I could help somehow. All I can say is that what you are alleging is simply untrue, and not supported by facts. It is opinion at best. Please know that the whole world doesn’t hate you, and just because a publication writes words that do not align with your beliefs it does not make them a “propaganda machine.” I cannot meet you further in the middle than this, because I cannot accept conspiracy theories as truth. But I am here to talk if you want to step away from that darkness.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  It's a bit melodramatic to characterize their primary output as race-baiting propaganda However I think it's interesting to compare and contrast how they handled Andrew Sullivan's racist comments from 26 years ago, Sarah Jeong's racist comments from 5-8 years ago, and Quinn Norton's use of slurs around 8 years ago.
  - muglug 6y ago
    I think context is quite important. Andrew Sullivan is notorious for believing in some version of The Bell Curve theory — that differences in academic achievement can be at least partly explained by measurable differences in average intelligence between different races. He promoted that view in his role as editor of a major news magazine in the early 90s. That sets him apart from Quinn Norton, who nevertheless used some racial slurs on early internet message boards. I think her article discussing her friendship with a neo-Nazi was more damaging, though. FWIW I think The Times overreacted there. Sarah Jeong made some bad taste jokes at white people’s expense while being harassed by actual racist trolls. Only the truly cynical would call those tweets racist, when viewed in context.
muglug 6y ago
> NYT's recent decline from paper of record to race-baiting propaganda Good newspapers must always speak truth to power. In a country where white people hold virtually all of it, sometimes that means speaking truth to white power. You’re sort of telling on yourself if you find that offensive.
- nullc 6y ago
  The thing about speaking truth to power is that there are two components to the statement. It isn't met only by attacking a group perceived to be affiliated with "power"-- it also has to involve the truth.
  - jolux 6y ago
    Who's claiming it doesn't have to involve the truth?
    - nullc 6y ago
      jimmygrapes two comments up stated that he believed coinbase expected the NYT would not be "being factual" and that he expected the article "written as an exaggerated hit piece full of emotional appeal rather than, well, news". To which muglug replied extolling the irrefutable virtue of speaking truth to power-- which is an insultingly irrelevant response to someone accusing them of being non-factual.
      - muglug 6y ago
        I’m not an expert debater, but if you’re going to accuse an organisation of being race-baiting, it’s always good to at least provide an example or two. Since the commenter didn’t, I sort of zeroed in on that.
        julianmarq 6y ago
        > I sort of zeroed in on that. You didn't. > if you’re going to accuse an organisation of being race-baiting, it’s always good to at least provide an example or two. This is "zeroing in on that". What you first replied is many things, but it is certainly not this.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

philtar 6y ago

> Reading between the lines, I imagine that the complaints workers claim to have filed were ignored by management at some level of the process, or not filed on the right paperwork or something. Reading the lines (instead of between them) tells you that two of the complains were investigated by a third-party which found no evidence of wrong-doing.

jolux 6y ago
Tells you very little. If you pay a third party to investigate you they have a material interest in not finding wrongdoing and not reporting it if they do find it.
drewbug01 6y ago
What you’ve said and what I’ve said are not in conflict. Coinbase clearly states that they believe there to be three complaints and that they’re generally in the clear. My point about reading between the lines is that the explicit, specific repetition of the claim and the way they’re saying it implies that the NYT is going to allege there were more complaints. So then: what of the missing complaints? What Coinbase is saying, essentially, is that whatever else is alleged either didn’t happen (eg, the NYT is outright lying), or that they weren’t really complaints. That’s what I’m getting at. It’s highly unlikely that the NYT is lying. I would be shocked if they did not verify in some way that the complaints alleged were indeed made to Coinbase. And I also do not think that Coinbase would accuse the NYT of lying either. It’s not a particularly defensible position. So - that’s the reading between the lines. To me, the most plausible explanation is that the NYT will allege multiple complaints, and Coinbase is trying to say “no those don’t count.”
- ericpauley 6y ago
  It seems plausible to me that The Times could use very similar language to "a number of people," and giving 3 examples while implying that the number is far more.
  - drewbug01 6y ago

asveikau 6y ago

> Although the story will likely allege that a number of Black employees and contractors referenced in the story filed complaints with the company, only three of these people filed complaints This is funny in a literal sense because three is most certainly "a number".

underseacables 6y ago

I think you’re being unfair at best, and personally vindictive at worst. As I read, the NYT called them up with threat of a story about discrimination, and gave them 48 hours to investigate the allegations. If someone did that to you, and you had done nothing wrong, it would seem you might say something about this journalist drive-by. If not then perhaps the public might believe the stories, not realizing you were put under the knife of the NYT with 48 hours to respond.

whakim 6y ago

Agreed. The entire post is filled with vague language, such as talking about what the story will "imply". Also, I think it goes without saying that there are plenty of very understandable reasons why people don't file complaints even though they have very legitimate grievances (which allows companies to stand on such technicalities). So we'll see.

ericpauley 6y ago
To be fair, The Times is notorious for crafty implication. For the casual reader, these implications can ring far louder than the actual facts, without the piece being false, per se.
- whakim 6y ago
  Not sure I agree that the NYT is particularly notable in the sense that they're a news organization with a perspective, and that perspective often comes through in the articles they publish. Every news org indirectly implies things in terms of which pieces of evidence they present, what order facts are presented in, what other content they cite etc. I don't think the NYTimes is secretly trying to influence their readers in a crafty or underhanded manner.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- drewbug01 6y ago
  Can you expand on that? Reading through the comment threads on this piece, I’ve noticed this idea of the NYT being intentionally misleading in various forms (“they lie,” “they mislead,” “they make implications,” etc). That isn’t my perception of the NYT at all - but I’d like to hear more of what you’re saying. Has any research been done on the overall veracity of the claims the NYT makes in their articles, or on the ways that they may or may not mislead people through implication?
  - rrdharan 6y ago

disown 6y ago

> underscore the fundamental truths of whatever the NYT I wouldn't ever use the words truth and NYT - especially when it comes to cultural topics. And also geopolitical topics. Or anything of national significance. Or war. You get the idea. > Otherwise... why bother dignifying it with such a response? Why is the NYT writing a hit piece on coinbase? For what reason and what ends? When it comes to propaganda, it always helps to get out in front of the "story". I'm guessing that's what coinbase is doing. I have my own ideas, like everyone else. It's highly likely that both the NYTimes and coinbase are lying or exaggerating or twisting the truth. Certainly neither side is offering any "fundamental truth".

drewbug01 6y ago
> I wouldn't ever use the words truth and NYT - especially when it comes to cultural topics. And also geopolitical topics. Or anything of national significance. Or war. You get the idea. Can you expand on that? It feels like you’re saying that the NYT lies (to greatly and possibly incorrectly paraphrase). But I don’t generally believe that to be true; and I haven’t seen much evidence to indicate they’ve been engaged in that kind of behavior. Certainly not often, if at all. > Why is the NYT writing a hit piece on coinbase? > When it comes to propaganda, it always helps to get out in front of the "story". I'm guessing that's what coinbase is doing. Did the NYT write a hit piece on Coinbase? I haven’t read the article yet, since it hasn’t been published. No one has. What I believe to be absolutely true is this: Coinbase desperately wants everyone to believe that it’s a hit piece. That’s obvious from the timing, tone, and things they actually wrote in the letter. But at least in theory, the NYT higher goals and aspirations in life - to uncover and publish truth. Coinbase doesn’t, and they live and die entirely by customers choosing to trust them with their business. They have every rational incentive to fight for you to trust them regardless of whether the NYT piece is true or not. And what if it is true? Whatever it turns out to be (again: it’s not published). To me, when a company launches into this kind of PR Hail Mary, it’s not a sign of integrity.

cma 6y ago

> only three of these people filed complaints during their time at Coinbase. I really hope that's not a corporate way of saying X - 3 number of people filed complaints after they were wrongly terminated.

Hamuko 6y ago

>what they expect to be a very, very bad article Yeah, my first thought reading this was "Exactly how bad is it gonna be if they feel like they need to start damage control even before the article is out?"

antpls 6y ago

> only three of these people filed complaints during their time at Coinbase. "Only"? I'm from EU, and three complaints seem already like a lot for any standard company. Maybe it is different in the US?

aliyfarah 6y ago

>This is the kind of thing that really leads me to distrust everything Coinbase is saying. Reading between the lines, I imagine that the complaints workers claim to have filed were ignored by management at some level of the process, or not filed on the right paperwork or something. You're too kind. I suspect what usually happens: the employee was fired by management soon after hearing some loud rumblings, then the employee filed an official complaint. Filing an official complaint while employed is extremely difficult, you not only have to weigh whether you have a justified complaint, but also expect some tension and possible conflict with your employer. I don't like how Coinbase tried to play off official complaints from fired employees.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

The meaning of „don’t be political at work“ was always „let us be racists in peace“.