5 ms·

I don't like Coinbase's policy, but this is not at all inconsistent with it. They were clear that they'd only ever engage politically in order to further their

I don't like Coinbase's policy, but this is not at all inconsistent with it. They were clear that they'd only ever engage politically in order to further their company's goals. This is exactly what they said they'd do. I would not work at a company that behaved like Coinbase in this case, but it's not fair to suggest they are being hypocritical here. Their stance has been consistent - it's just a bad one.

londons_explore 4y ago
"politics only for the companies goals" sounds good to me... What's wrong with it? Eg. A coffee company gets involved in the politics around recyclable cups, labor laws, import taxes on coffee, etc. But they don't get involved with abortion...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- msbarnett 4y ago
  > Eg. A coffee company gets involved in the politics around recyclable cups, labor laws, import taxes on coffee, etc. But they don't get involved with abortion... The problem becomes that these things aren't cleanly separable and policy support is basically fungible; the anti-coffee-import-tax politician might oppose forcing almond growers in California to reduce water usage, or the pro crypto politician might be for federal anti-abortion measures. You can't earmark the money for some kinds of votes but not others; funding a politician's re-election gets you everything they vote for or nothing at all. So it becomes not so much "no politics" as "the corporation's politics ahead of any other"; exacerbating drought conditions in California is "political" and not worth discussing even as the politician responsible for it is funded in order to obtain import-tax-free coffee, or banning abortion is considered an acceptable price to pay (and don't you dare bring up this consequence at work, for that would be "political") for pro-crypto policies. I don't even necessarily object to companies saying "I accept that X happening is the cost of obtaining corporate goal Y", it's just ludicrously dishonest to pretend that involving themselves in politics isn't political and doesn't have political consequences beyond "crypto good".
  - ivraatiems 4y ago
    I totally agree with you about what the problem with the policy is - but I don't think Coinbase is doing this: > pretend[ing] that involving themselves in politics isn't political and doesn't have political consequences beyond "crypto good". I don't think they're pretending it doesn't. I think they're making it clear they simply don't care. They don't care about climate, or BLM, or the 2020 election, or whatever. They only care about crypto. The world can burn so long as crypto numbers go up. But at least they're honest about it.
    - msbarnett 4y ago
      > But at least they're honest about it. They're really not though, insofar as they're framing "not caring" as "not political". It's very political to not care that you're handing money to someone who's anti-abortion (or pro-abortion) because it will get you some other thing, other issues be damned. If they framed that as not caring that would be one thing, but framing it as "not political" assumes a level of abject stupidity in the people they're making that claim to that I'm disinclined to play along with.

londons_explore 4y ago

"politics only for the companies goals" sounds good to me... What's wrong with it? Eg. A coffee company gets involved in the politics around recyclable cups, labor laws, import taxes on coffee, etc. But they don't get involved with abortion...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
msbarnett 4y ago
> Eg. A coffee company gets involved in the politics around recyclable cups, labor laws, import taxes on coffee, etc. But they don't get involved with abortion... The problem becomes that these things aren't cleanly separable and policy support is basically fungible; the anti-coffee-import-tax politician might oppose forcing almond growers in California to reduce water usage, or the pro crypto politician might be for federal anti-abortion measures. You can't earmark the money for some kinds of votes but not others; funding a politician's re-election gets you everything they vote for or nothing at all. So it becomes not so much "no politics" as "the corporation's politics ahead of any other"; exacerbating drought conditions in California is "political" and not worth discussing even as the politician responsible for it is funded in order to obtain import-tax-free coffee, or banning abortion is considered an acceptable price to pay (and don't you dare bring up this consequence at work, for that would be "political") for pro-crypto policies. I don't even necessarily object to companies saying "I accept that X happening is the cost of obtaining corporate goal Y", it's just ludicrously dishonest to pretend that involving themselves in politics isn't political and doesn't have political consequences beyond "crypto good".
- ivraatiems 4y ago
  I totally agree with you about what the problem with the policy is - but I don't think Coinbase is doing this: > pretend[ing] that involving themselves in politics isn't political and doesn't have political consequences beyond "crypto good". I don't think they're pretending it doesn't. I think they're making it clear they simply don't care. They don't care about climate, or BLM, or the 2020 election, or whatever. They only care about crypto. The world can burn so long as crypto numbers go up. But at least they're honest about it.
  - msbarnett 4y ago
    > But at least they're honest about it. They're really not though, insofar as they're framing "not caring" as "not political". It's very political to not care that you're handing money to someone who's anti-abortion (or pro-abortion) because it will get you some other thing, other issues be damned. If they framed that as not caring that would be one thing, but framing it as "not political" assumes a level of abject stupidity in the people they're making that claim to that I'm disinclined to play along with.