An upcoming story about Coinbase
blog.coinbase.com
blog.coinbase.com
It is odd to me that they would preemptively go loud on this, drawing attention to a story that might not even get that much traction. It seems like it would have been much easier to just let that story go out and respond with a simple "We've investigated this before and dispute the claims, except for these few unfortunate stories we can confirm happened, and here's how we will prevent them in the future." What on earth do they gain with a preemptive memo like this? Are they really scared of their employees leaking this? Would anyone even pick up a story of "someone's about to publish a bad article about Coinbase"?
It's hard for me to imagine an NYT story getting less traction than a Coinbase post, though. So is this really drawing attention to the story? Maybe this is just drawing more attention to Coinbase's version of the story, rather than the NYT's version.
Basically, if you're going to end up publishing a counterargument to an upcoming news story, why not publish the rebuttal first? Maybe the tradition of waiting for a bad newspaper article, then immediately publishing a rebuttal, is an artifact of the olden days when there were no corporate blogs and social media, when there was no way to bring attention to a pre-rebuttal.
"This is gonna be really bad, so we need to get out in front of it." That's what it sounds like to me.
When the actual story comes out it is not such a big news any more, because it is not news any more. First impressions often last, so now the first impressions is that the story is fake.
So even if their response does amplify the story, it might amplify a good story rather than a bad one. So go even so far as to say "all publicity is good publicity"
The NYT is far from objective, so this may actually work.
Especially given the circumstances of the article.
That said, I think Popper specifically has done a decent job with tech stories in the past. So I reserve judgement. But only because of him, not because of the NYT.
Why not? I was never going to read said article. Now I am, based on this post, alone. This was never going to be headline news.
> First impressions often last, so now the first impressions is that the story is fake.
Except my first impression is that it is real, not fake, based on this response, because companies lie all the damn time. I imagine many don't believe in company PR at all.
One thing I do know - I would not have read this article had it not been for this post by Coinbase.
Moreover, getting in front of this means adopting a stance of openness and transparency that, in itself, seems quite laudible. As a PR strategy, this is good work, especially for a company that's already raised its profile on these topics earlier in the year.
Whether it's cynical PR strategy or sincere crisis management is left for the reader to decide.
We provided several written, on-the-record statements to The Times. We have no control over whether and how The Times uses those statements (in whole or in part) in the story. Given this, we decided to make our email to employees and FAQ publicly available to provide additional facts and context.
Yeah, if this is the level of maturity that’s in charge, it doesn’t matter if these execs personally discriminate against their black employees. They’re donezo.
Should probably share the whole quote and not just cherry pick.
Ignore any potential negativity, everything we do is great, all that matters is revenue, nothing bad ever happens hear, blah blah blah. Don't focus on the bad part, those are all lies!
The NYTimes article isn't released so I can't comment on the substance there, but this quote struck out to me, and makes me less likely to believe Coinbase.
EDIT: Adding this to clarify for later readers, apparently the above quote I took from the post has been removed from the main post.
Criticism is not abuse. They’re also not doing the best job defending themselves since they offer no concrete proof, testimony, or narrative. Who were these employees? What happened? We don’t know, but are left with some empty promise of a statement that Coinbase “handled it internally.”
this sounds like a good band name
sorry about the offtopic comment
If Coinbase had not published the prior memo, this article would likely have not been written. Was it written by someone with an axe to grind, I don't know (maybe) but the odds of the article being greenlit were definitely juiced due to coinbase garnering attention and most critically, divided attention via their publication.
It's of course also hilarious that Coinbases attempt at shutting political discourse at the company down now has put them into the crosshairs if that's actually the case.
All things being equal, the Coinbase office is probably going to be a pretty awkward place to be the next couple of months.
It's like Google changing their policy to never mention the words 'marketshare' in internal documentation and journalists going out and investigating Google's antitrust situtation and writing about it. That's not a bad thing, that's what generally prompts journalists taking a look at a company
Investigations into racial discrimination or sexual harassment complaints take months (see for example, at Riot Games, an internal investigation took almost 5 months even though most of the facts were already publicly known at the start of the investigation. https://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/id/26686134/how-got-her...). This means that the race complaints predated the September announcement.
Additionally, given that investigative pieces generally involve months of investigation, fact-checking, re-writing, it's very likely that this article was already being researched or written at the time of Coinbase's original political non-activism announcement.
It's simply being called it for is corporate behavior. And based on it's past behavior, it's likely the NYT report is true.
On the other hand, leftists spuriously accusing people of being racist happens all the time. My prior for such accusations being true is like 0.05
These are inexpensive words said by every company. I feel that most companies, after uttering them, don't actually do anything to follow through.
Disagree - neurotic people who believe in equality are not so easily fooled. It's meant to sway MLKs "white moderate" before they read a mean article in the NYT.
That internal email is nothing but "NYT bad" and what seems like pretty cheap promises... if you have to send those to your employees in the first place.
Then I don't think it will help Coinbase itself much with the potential backlash of a NYT story with what seems like multiple employees coming out including receipts that will get published.
And it doesn't seem really helpful for employees to defend themselves from some potential inquiries/harassment either?
And then there is the Streisand effect...
And if they didn't, they'd be criticised for not doing do.
> Then I don't think it will help Coinbase itself much with the potential backlash of a NYT story
It depends. Backlash should be against provable actions of discrimination. From the article, it sounds like the issue was someone disagreeing with BLM.
Being called 'Black Lives Matter' doesn't make criticism of BLM racist any more than the DPRK being called the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' makes criticism of North Korea anti-democratic.
There’s no need to lie in a hit piece. You can select your material, shade the truth and quote people who hate your subject on their opinions. Lying leaves you open to libel and slander too.
Coinbase has preemptively presented their side of the story in an effort to make us all say "oh, yeah, that's the hit piece we were warned about," but we haven't actually seen the other side of the story yet.
I mean Libya, Syria, Iran, Venezuela if 200k dead isn't enough for you.
Iraq, Libya etc. would like a word.
Ever heard of the 1619 Project?
> 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?
This is funny in a literal sense because three is most certainly "a number".
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.
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?"
I really hope that's not a corporate way of saying X - 3 number of people filed complaints after they were wrongly terminated.
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.
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?
1. The New York Times published a scathing critique of Google’s 4000 word privacy policy, neglecting anywhere to mention that their own privacy policy was 25% longer and sketchier.
2. The entire handling of the Caliphate podcast and subsequent backpedaling and retroactive reframing.
3. Similar to 2., the doubling down but silent adjustments to the 1619 project historical inaccuracies.
4. The maddening insistence on handling of Slate Star Codex author’s identity and hypocrisy as compared to Chapo Trap House.
5. The submarine propaganda piece about CP on the dark web, which was clearly an attempt to build societal consensus for mandatory backdoors in E2E messaging.
You can go back farther into obvious hits like the second Iraq War and WMD madness of course..
I generally don’t trust the New York Times.
I suppose - absent more consistent evidence (they do a lot of reporting after all) - it’s not entirely convincing to me. A lot of other outlets made the same mistakes (especially stuff about the Iraq War, since you mentioned it - but I think that’s actually a different class of problem if I’m being honest).
I mainly try to judge on the overall pattern of behavior because focusing solely on the high-profile mistakes quickly leaves you with no real sources of news left. But, of course, that’s just how I see it and I respect that these examples convince you!
The long story short is: thank you, I genuinely do find the examples interesting.
I still read the New York Times (though I’m no longer a paying subscriber). I don’t think they are as untrustworthy as like, Newsmax or Info Wars or what have you.
I just typically prefer the Washington Post or WSJ (sans crazy WSJ op-eds) since it’s hard to unsee the NYT slant in everything lately and I find their shrillness and shamelessness exhausting.
I don’t have much of a preference between the NYT and WaPo as far as “trustworthiness” goes, but the point about their different voices is interesting to me. They absolutely do have very different voices. I actually don’t care for either one of them!
But ... thinking about it - I feel like perhaps some have trouble with a news organizations “voice” and general perspective on the world - and can’t distinguish that voice or perspective from the reporting. My gut says that this is a critical reading skill that is perhaps not as common with some people, and it leads them to think a source isn’t trustworthy.
> sans crazy WSJ op-eds
What?! The op-eds are where you go when you want to read crazy things for entertainment! Where else can you get that kind of fun?! (I jest, of course).
Or, you can start taking different sources with appropriate grains of salt accounting for their biases. If I see an NYT piece critical of Conservatives / Republicans / Corporations, I am going to assume some bias in reporting. Similarly, if I see a piece commenting on an event related to Democrats / Racial Justice / Immigration / Public spending, I am going to check a few right wing sources for their take on the same issue.
#3 The adjustments (aka corrections) were not silent. They announced them, and the big corrections even got their own NYT articles, see e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the....
#4 NYT published the identities of Slate Star Codex because it was newsworthy. The identities of the Chapo House Guys was not, because they were, and this part is crucial: open about their identities. Both of these blogs spread ideological filth, but the CHG didn't cower behind anonymity to do it like the SSC guy did.
#5 This is not submarine propaganda. CP exists on the dark web, and in fact the use of the dark web to spread CP is why so many Tor nodes chose to shut down. (This is also unrelated to putting mandatory backdoors in E2E messaging, which the NYT...opposes...)
#6 The federal government lied about the weapons...not the NYT...And WMDs did exist. Iraq still had a very large stockpile of chemical weapons when we invaded (during Bush II). They simply were intended for use against the local population, not the U.S. (See a non-NYT source: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-m...)
https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memo...
(Side note I don’t really trust Quillette either but I do believe this sequence of events is what unfolded)
As the 1619 project was itself described as an "ongoing" project it's bizarre and unusual for people to complain about it being corrected. That's the writing process: draft, and re-draft as necessary based on feedback re grammar, language, factual errors, etc.
In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. If you want archival copies of the incorrect versions, you can access those through other means, such as through databases like Lexis Nexis or through hard copies of the paper.
The changes to the framing of the project were not announced. The only way that anyone noticed them is that the lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones (NHJ), started claiming that conservatives were misrepresenting the project. She specifically said that the project did not claim 1619 as America's true founding date.
People then went back and found all of NHJ's tweets explicitly stating that this was the purpose of the project (NHJ deleted her entire Twitter history shortly thereafter). When people went to look at the 1619 Project website, however, they noticed that the intro paragraphs that explicitly stated that 1619 is America's true founding had been edited to no longer state that.
> In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing.
The claim about 1619 being America's true founding was the central claim of the project, the thing that it had heavily publicized and used to gain attention. The NY Times spent months defending the project and attacking critics, only to edit out the central claim of the project without so much as a notice. The lead author then started going around denying that the project had ever made the claim, and calling the whole idea a conservative conspiracy theory.
Whatever problems the NY Times has had, this is not how people expect the newspaper of record to behave. If this were The Daily Beast, then it wouldn't be that surprising, but its the NY Times, the Gray Lady
"Only"? I'm from EU, and three complaints seem already like a lot for any standard company. Maybe it is different in the US?
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.
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.”
That implies a high level of intentional deception on the part of the NYT, though. It has certainly happened, of course; and the opinion columns are full of it (like they are at all papers).
I don’t believe that the NYT generally engages in intentional deception, however - so I’m inclined to believe that they aren’t intending on it now.
But as you said, it is possible. And a healthy skepticism of the papers is not bad.
Also, if you think the NYT doesn't 'lie', then how about you read up on their reporting of the Duke lacrosse team case, or their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity.
Coinbase isn't perfect. But NYT lies. A lot.
But EVEN if the NYT doesn't lie, you haven't read the article yet.
What we have in front of us is a very poorly executed attempt at damage control - over an article that has not been published - and we really must remember that. If we simply accept what Coinbase has published as truth, then it frames everything differently. But we must read what they’ve written as an attempt at controlling the narrative. They’re asking the world to discredit an article that (as you’ve mentioned) hasn’t been published yet. That deserves an extreme amount of scrutiny and skepticism.
> You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it.
I believe you misunderstand my motives. How could I possibly defend an unread article? It’s impossible and illogical.
What I have been saying (in more diplomatic language) is that “this smells like a crock of shit from Coinbase,” and I’ve been attempting to illustrate why their own attempt at damage control actually predisposes me to distrust them. It’s an incredibly amateurish PR move on their part, honestly.
But I’m also trying to poke holes at the corporate speak, and trying to understand what they’re saying and what they’re not saying.
And of course, it’s partly speculation! But what else could it be? They published a spin piece proclaiming innocence regarding the contents of an unpublished article. Of course we’re in the realm of speculation; the whole game started there the moment they published this letter.
> their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity.
Alleging hundreds of examples of a complete disregard to journalistic integrity requires proof, honestly. It’s a pretty hefty claim that I wouldn’t accept at face value (nobody should). If it’s your opinion, that’s fine - but it’s not fact unless you can point to some evidence. Extraordinary claims put the burden of proof on the party making the claims.
> But NYT lies. A lot.
Friend, this is not enlightened discourse. That’s an opinion, and not a well-substantiated one.
Do we? Your opinion that is poorly executed doesn't actually mean that it is.
> But we must read what they’ve written as an attempt at controlling the narrative.
And...? God forbid their wanting to control the narrative about... Themselves? I'm not seeing the problem there.
> They’re asking the world to discredit an article that (as you’ve mentioned) hasn’t been published yet. That deserves an extreme amount of scrutiny and skepticism.
But the NYT should be inherently trusted, unless I read your original comment incorrectly.
> How could I possibly defend an unread article? It’s impossible and illogical.
You literally called it "fundamental truth" in your original comment, so I'm actually a bit curious about your answer to your own question.
> I’ve been attempting to illustrate why their own attempt at damage control actually predisposes me to distrust them
Reading your comments, it seems more like a bias in favor of the NYT et al what is predisposing you to distrust them.
Of course, nothing wrong with that. If you feel like they properly represent the truth of your views, not supporting them would be incongruous. But that doesn't mean that someone who disagrees about how well they represent the truth of the matter has to share your opinion. Indeed, sharing your opinion would be incongruous in that case.
> It’s an incredibly amateurish PR move on their part, honestly.
This is not enlightened discourse. Again, just because you think it is doesn't mean that it is. Specially when using vague non-descriptions like "amateurish".
> it’s partly speculation
It's entirely speculation.
Yes - I believe you did read it incorrectly. I am personally inclined to trust the NYT more than the words of a CEO of a tech company; I personally put more trust in the former rather than the latter.
As you’ve eloquently laid out - that’s a personal choice I make, and I own that. But I am not declaiming in my comment that the NYT should be inherently trusted by all.
Now - if you want to ask me that question directly: I do think that the NYT is more trustworthy than Coinbase. And if you want my opinion on the matter, yeah - I think you should trust the NYT too!
But: that simply wasn’t what I said in my original comment. I don’t think that’s a fair reading of it at all.
> You literally called it "fundamental truth" in your original comment, so I'm actually a bit curious about your answer to your own question.
I would answer it by saying you’ve missed the forest for the trees. I was not alleging that the article will be “fundamental truth” - in the sense that every word it says will be true. Rather, my comments in context imply that I trust there will be at least some truth in the article - and that the words Coinbase published serve to highlight the presumed core of truth in the article.
What you’ve said here is nitpicking at a word and ignoring how it’s used in the context of my words as a whole, and doesn’t move the conversation forward.
> This is not enlightened discourse. Again, just because you think it is doesn't mean that it is. Specially when using vague non-descriptions like "amateurish".
You’re right; this is devolving into name-calling. And I stand by my usage of “amateurish”. That is a perfectly acceptable word to use in a discussion here, and it’s not even as imprecise as you claim. If you have questions about what it means, of course, do ask.
I’m not going to engage further on this thread. You’re nit-picking at words here in a really unkind way.
That isn't much-- I agree-- but I doubt that they know enough about the time's intended allegations to respond more specifically. And if they did respond too specifically presumably the times would shift their allegations to different specifics in any case, making a general response the only durable one.
Interestingly, other commenters here characterized Coinbases' message with language such as "incredibly thorough prebuttal" and suggested that this indicated that the story was devastating. You seem to be arguing the opposite, that it is perfectly generic and is thus indicative of a traditional cover-up approach. From this it seems to me that regardless of what approach they took it would be characterized as evidence against them.
I’ve been at plenty of startups and have witnessed people doing the right thing or rocking the boat and being let go. I myself have been in that boat for reporting sexual harassment on behalf of a friend/peer at work who was too afraid to report the manager. I caught the heat from it and was let go over that.
This is going to be an interesting who said what and what really happened in the next few days.
"likely quote three former Coinbase employees and a former contractor by name, and include photos of some of them....The story will likely imply that Black employees were discriminated against during this process; this is false."
Is this company so cheap they can't even build themselves a website?
Looking at the footer links: "9 Fantastic Signs That Your Partner Is Madly In Love With You" and "The Elites Are Preparing a New Currency to Replace the U.S. Dollar"
...really detracts from the message.
And lot of the puzzling aspects here make a lot of sense when seen in that context. This is exactly the kind of response you'd expect if, say, you discovered some famous short seller were going to release a report on you.
They could have waited until the story was published I guess to share this statement, but publishing it preemptively makes sense too I believe (it's an always open entity that is incredibly easy to switch away from).
But truly, when you get accused of racism, what can you even do?
Denying the charge or defending yourself simply digs you deeper into the hole.
What you're supposed to do is admit you're a racist, fall down on your knees, abjectly beg forgiveness of your accusers, and list all the new things you'll be doing to stop being racist.
Then your accusers have the power to forgive you. But you really, truly have to go all the way in submitting to their demands.
And they still might not forgive you. After all, you're racist scum, the lowest of the low.
It's an incredibly toxic and destructive way of handling the issue of racism.
I know I'm not a racist -- I interact with people of all races. I don't let race enter into my interactions. I sleep well at night, because I know I'm not a racist.
Defending myself against ridiculous allegations of racism is a game I refuse to play. For the good and simple reason that if you play the game, you can only lose.
However, the statement "I know I'm not a racist" is slippery. Perhaps you're not, but guess what, most racist people think the same too. I've seen explicitly racist things told to me with the same statement prefixed to it. How do you absolutely know you're not racist? Perhaps we all are at least slightly racist and should strive every day to just reduce that part of us?
This is similar to 'I know I am not a bad person' - the majority of the people subscribe to this hypothesis and I believe that is the root cause for many ills in society. I subscribe to an alternate hypothesis - "most of us are kinda bad people" - I mean most people here have burned tons of CO2 on plane trips for personal pleasure, or bought fancy cars or thought we deserve luxury when many in the world continue to suffer - all of this is bad in some definition anyway so even if we all don't promise to be saints let's at least acknowledge that we all ain't angels as a first step?
What in the heck are you doing that's inviting frequent accusations of racism?
> The point is, if you want to face reality rather than live in a comfortable fantasy, you have to confront the possibility that the racists are right about one thing: It's possible that some races really do have less intelligence than others.
You just can't go around making statements about race and intelligence, however delicate and nuanced, and not expect people to raise an eyebrow. Do you think he'd make that same statement in a room full of black people?
In case it isn't obvious, not-racist people with a smidgeon of social awareness don't even engage in those sorts of discussions on the first place, because they understand that nothing productive can come of them.
They're his words, and I linked to the full thread to provide context. If you find "this behavior" "very rude," I think many others here would disagree with you.
However, if you want to accuse someone of racism, you better have evidence of you're going to pay.
I’m pretty sure many racists think the same things... You don’t need to be in the KKK to be racist. You don’t need to be saying the n-word to be racist. There are a lot of more “subtle” things you could be doing that /are definitely/ racist.
Btw, the fact you don’t let race enter your interactions probably means you’re not accounting for what people experience as part of their race. So, you’re probably racist for not considering their position.
(I think it was probably the right choice either way given how serious the allegations appear to be, so this is just idle curiosity on my part).
It's a fair question, but I doubt it. While getting a hot scoop and dropping it with a bang is something that feels good (and sells papers, so to speak), it's not the driving force behind how a professional news org works. The NYT is a professional news org. One of the things a professional news orgs does is fact check, get statements, and give its sources a chance to respond.
> three of these people filed complaints during their time at Coinbase. All of those complaints were thoroughly investigated, one through an internal investigation and two by separate third-party investigators
Using third parties sounds like a good idea here.
Arthur Andersen taught us that two decades ago.
Make sure nobody has any examples of you being racist
You can avoid explicit examples with evidence attached ("he called me a n-word and fired me, see <youtube link>") but I don't see how you can reliably avoid claims of bias. And while the nyt article isn't out yet, I'm willing to bet that these (like most) claims is one of bias. Moreoever most actual legitimate instances of racism are also going to be of that form, because most people aren't stupid enough to make illegal things they are doing obvious.
And if you feel so inclined, you can express your understanding to that person who feels that they have been wronged because of their background. Chances are they have been right far more often than they have been wrong and it's very stressful having to deal with an ever-present potential for unprovoked adversity.
It should be a very small burden on you to acknowledge their situation.
To return to the topic, Coinbase doesn't lose a breath acknowledging their Black employees who did file complaints. If they had any sympathy for these employees — which they should have even if they were not wronged for being Black — why didn't they express it in the statement?
(I edited a second half into my original comment that might make this clearer, though I did that before I saw your reply)
I personally think it is a silly case, but 'well, just don't be racist' is a silly defense - so maybe they'll work well together.
But how do you defend against implicit bias? "No, I'm not"? In the current climate, I'm not sure that saves your public image...
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/us/covington-catholic-hig...
No it doesn't. Perhaps constantly forcing your subjective interpreted and implied meaning on everyone else is the root of the problem.
> "call this being apolitical"
Sure, call it that. It literally means not involved.
If you have been accused of racism that's because somebody has an example of you being racist. If you did not have racist intent you can clarify your intent. Simply claiming you're not a racist won't do because pretty much everyone accused of racism makes that claim (example: central park dog walker, or any other person in the news accused of racism).
Edit: I am talking about instances where the facts are not in question. For example, you did not hire Xyz, and you're accused of racism.
Anyone can accuse anyone of anything; that’s not sufficient to suggest that the accused must be guilty on some level.
> any other person in the news accused of racism
You’re kind of proving the point by claiming it’s always so clear cut.
If only that were true.
Happy employees don't accuse their employers of racism. If you are being accused of racism by your employees, surely something went wrong and there are things you can identify to improve, and then commit to improving those things as part of rebuilding your integrity.
This is "guilty until proven innocent", when exactly did this mentality catch on? Well, in any case I hope the trend reverses because it's directly opposite to how the law works.
For that matter, I would love if you elaborated on how an accusation must surely mean that a wrongdoing actually happened instead of replying with uncharitable interpretations of my comments.
Such a burden is also unreasonable in many informal situations, as being required to establish formal and indisputable evidence of wrongdoing would prevent many people from being able to speak out about wrongdoings (especially lesser wrongdoings) within their community.
Coinbase here had 3 formal racism complaints filed internally and Coinbase is stating in their article that they found that all of these claims were incorrect and baseless. To which I say... really? Even model citizen companies are able to trace down elements of racism within their organization when they look hard enough, because racism is a natural bias cooked into many of us, and overcoming that bias requires proactive effort.
You are asking me to give you charitable interpretations, while at the same time refusing to give charitable interpretations to the folks lodging the racism complaints.
No company is perfect, and especially over 1,000 employees I don't think it's unreasonable to have issues within certain parts of the org. But after those issues surface, it seems problematic to me that you would try and assert that actually everything is just fine. Especially in an industry that is overwhelmingly white and male.
Not automatically thinking that an accused is guilty is... Unreasonable.
I honestly have to ask if I'm reading that correctly because I'm really hoping I am.
> Even model citizen companies are able to trace down elements of racism within their organization when they look hard enough
Interesting, some people say this a lot, and also say the analogous regarding sexism. Yet when Google (a company that basically has "be evil" now as its unofficial slogan) actually "looked hard enough", they found they were actually paying women more than men.
So allow me to doubt this claim you're making.
> racism is a natural bias cooked into many of us
No, no it's not. Not only it is the naturalist fallacy (and without any solid evidence, unusual for this one), it's fundamentally cynical. People are not "naturally" bigots in any way, and even if the argument were for nurture (or "social conditioning", if you prefer), this claim would still be extremely suspect.
> while at the same time refusing to give charitable interpretations to the folks lodging the racism complaints.
I'm being charitable to both accusers and accused; there's no reason not to be, specially in this case where the complaints were investigated and found to be unfounded. You seem to prefer to be entirely on one side, and not only for this particular example; your original comment was far broader.
> it seems problematic to me that you would try and assert that actually everything is just fine [emphasis mine]
Is that what I said? Well, that you would twist my words this much in order to find them "problematic"—and that you would find such a claim "problematic" in this case—does explain why you think the existence of a complain surely means that a wrongdoing happened. Thanks for clearing that up.
American society, certainly. Some white Europeans are a bit miffed at being lumped in with America’s problems. Europe has race/diversity problems of its own, but not on the same scale as the US’s.
In America I see similar things. I think it is seductive to be swept up with identity politics, and suddenly that promotion that went to a white person, feels different, feels racist. Or you employ a neurodiverse low-social skill person who makes an edgy unfunny joke, because he is nervous. That's "racist humor on the work floor" when going to a lawyer or journalist. It is a dangerous world out there. Current climate not helping.
I think journalists are also able to tell the difference between “some dude made a poor-taste joke once” and “dudes were always making poor-taste jokes targeted at one specific minority when the employee was present”.
I’ll also say that, at my reasonably woke US company, I’m not aware of any neurodiverse person getting in any trouble for making a bad-taste joke.
Then the offended person changes jobs, complains on Twitter about sexist humor driving her out of her previous job, a journalist searches for leads on their next story, and suddenly you are in the news with "multiple people complained about sexist and racist humor on the work floor, but nothing was done about it, and no complaint or investigation resulted in any action. We asked the company for a response and they replied that these internal investigations turned up nothing and that they don't accept discrimination of any kind".
Nearly every company has incidents of sex between co-workers, or people taking illegal drugs on a company get together. Depending on who you get to talk to that's "it seemed like every other week I saw a used condom in the stair ways" or "management regurarily used cocaine during company parties". You won't talk to anyone relativating it, and company PR is shy to even admit that stuff.
Now, it's also true to some degree that I benefit from society in a way that blacks don't (at least not to the same degree). And the right thing to do is to work for a world where blacks share in the benefits of society to the same degree that I do. (Where they don't have to be any more careful in a traffic stop than I do, for example.) But "acknowledging the role that my ancestors played"? I do, with pride.
They've taken a stance that has generated a polarized response, and people are going to respond to any and all problems that arise at the company based on their now-existing polarization.
I don't exempt myself from that.
I don’t think this is compatible with dismissing the struggle for human dignity in America as “politics”
Note that this is not my own thoughts on the subject, but I'm legitimately curious how you can have discourse in a situation similar to this: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-fires-employee-who-... - what would you do when someone asks? What would the expected result be?
From the link: > The Streisand effect is a social phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing that information, often via the Internet.
It’s not so much about whether a piece of information has been “published” or “publicized,” (although obviously that is typically the situation!) - but rather the act of trying to control the narrative causes the narrative to spin further away from your control.
Anyways, pedantry aside, to me this neatly fits the definition. There is information that Coinbase really doesn’t want out there: and their attempt at controlling the narrative has ensured I will be looking for this article and make time to read it as soon as it is published.
The fact is that they think the article is so damaging that they must do preemptive damage control speaks volumes.
As soon as I saw NYT in the I assumed it would something along those lines. It’s not clear what the grievances were yet so I’ll hold back judgement for now.
There are always consequences to trying to run an apolitical as. It’s always seems easier to just give in, especially on the surface layer, with the social media grievance machine, but upholding values through out your company is worth the effort. Not being racist should be common sense by now. Engaging in political campaigns is another matter.
Probably the most important line from this; those that have been through it before know it better than anyone. Likely best to apply healthy levels of skepticism to both parties.
But it's also true that they'd like to do as you claim, I think it's only fair skepticism is applied equally to both sides.
e.g. imagine one news outlet that only reports about homicides, another than only reports about theft, and another that only reports about covid deaths. All three can be perfectly factual, but they still present radically different views of what is wrong with the world to their readers.
> No one was asking for a political statement
Pick one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iV8X8ubGCc -- as comically illustrated by Seinfeld
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/12686223771826216...
Coinbase has been subject to a number of prior leaks where internally communication was shared partially and without context.
My assumption on seeing this was that they didn't necessarily want to make it public but, instead, had a reasonable apprehension that if they didn't make it public themselves someone else would excerpt from it and use the fact that they didn't make it public to suggest there was something shameful about their response.