Yes and no. Politics has both procedural and substantive aspects. A company choosing not to participate in politics is taking a stand about the appropriate scope of political advocacy—where, when, and how politics should play a role in society.

Companies not choosing to participate in politics is not, as some urge, de facto support of the status quo. It’s quite possible that e.g. Twitter taking a stand on some issue actually sets things back, by creating a stronger opposition.

Yes, since you cannot not participate in politics in reality. What you can do is not participate in active politics if you are happy with the status quo.

What is far more popular is hiding your politics behind some more lofty words (like the linked article by the Coinbase CEO trying to hide his personal politics that "economic freedom" is the most important thing behind 'this is not politics' and 'this is our company mission').

Only sophists think that way. Nobody is owed ostensible activism.

No, for the same reason that refugees fleeing from Syria are not ISIS/Assad sympathizers for not fighting back. They just do not want to be shot at.

I strongly disagree with this statement. A corporation (despite our current legal definition in the US) is not a person, and therefore shouldn't take sides in political matters, nor should it's representatives make overt political statements as though the company is a monolith. Companies are made up of people, and as individuals on their personal time and without conveying themselves as representatives of the company, should be able to to engage in politics.

If Silicon Valley executives are now going to be the arbiters of all that is good, we are in for a load of trouble. At best it's cringeworthy, at worst it's a load of limousine liberals wagging their fingers at the rest of us from their ivory towers.