2 ms·

Please, don't dismiss arguments and call them names. I was referring to a previous article... they omitted the severance package altogether, which was a key d

Please, don't dismiss arguments and call them names. I was referring to a previous article... they omitted the severance package altogether, which was a key detail of the story and all other major outlets did mention it. It is clear that NYT is being scetchy-dishonest/has an axe to grind, or just plain sloppy/incompetent. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/technology/politics-tech-start-ups-culture-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/technology/politics-tech-... "Two months earlier, dozens of Coinbase employees had staged a walkout after executives were slow to express solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters and minority employees, several workers said. In his post, Mr. Armstrong said employees who disagreed with his “no politics” stance could leave." "About 60 Coinbase employees, or 5 percent of the work force, have resigned, the company said. A spokeswoman declined further comment." They might have not lied on the article, but by omitting details they completely changed the narrative of the story to protect whatever cause they have. This second article, has an air of blackmmail to me.

whakim 6y ago
I wasn't intending to engage in name-calling; I apologise if it came off that way. I agree that the earlier story should have directly mentioned the severance Coinbase offered to employees who left. That being said, the severance was pretty tangential to the point of that earlier story: that different companies have very different policies on workplace activism, and Coinbase was taking a hard line on politics at work (no politics allowed at work). That being said, the NYT omitting a salient but tangential fact in a different story about Coinbase written several months ago hardly smacks of conspiracy. I try to read news articles on their own merits, giving some consideration to the agenda of the publication (and, as I mentioned earlier, the NYT has a perspective just like every other publication). To me, Coinbase didn't really provide anything to refute the allegations in this story in their "prebuttal", and the portrait of the company that the NYT paints seems pretty convincing.

whakim 6y ago

I wasn't intending to engage in name-calling; I apologise if it came off that way. I agree that the earlier story should have directly mentioned the severance Coinbase offered to employees who left. That being said, the severance was pretty tangential to the point of that earlier story: that different companies have very different policies on workplace activism, and Coinbase was taking a hard line on politics at work (no politics allowed at work). That being said, the NYT omitting a salient but tangential fact in a different story about Coinbase written several months ago hardly smacks of conspiracy. I try to read news articles on their own merits, giving some consideration to the agenda of the publication (and, as I mentioned earlier, the NYT has a perspective just like every other publication). To me, Coinbase didn't really provide anything to refute the allegations in this story in their "prebuttal", and the portrait of the company that the NYT paints seems pretty convincing.