Hmmm. A 'mission focused' company that bans discusses political and societal issues also has issues with diversity and how it treats its non-white workers?
I'll go ahead and file this in the 'In other news, water is wet' category.
I'll go ahead and file this in the 'In other news, water is wet' category.
1. Coinbase has real problems of discrimination
2. Coinbase is being targeted at a smearing campaign, for not playing ball with the ideology of de-jure of some circles. It is kinda like a repeat of 2003: "if you are not with us (for the Iraqi war), then you are with the terrorist" mantra of conservative circles to justify their war.
The truth, is probably somewhere in between. Also, NYT has become heavily biased/activist type of journal. While they don't straight up lie, they often omit many important details in their story, in order to justify their conclusion.
Also, the "if you're not with us, you're with them" mantra rests on the assumption that supporting the status quo means furthering terrorism/racism/whatever. In 2003 that was provably false given that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda and no evidence of Saddam's supposed WMDs. I think the situation with regards to racial justice in 2020 is much more complex and not quite analagous.
1. They are not mentioning that one reason is that a team had transfered regions/states, and that might be the main cause of attrition on that team, and not the actual treatment.
2. In a previous article, NYT failed to mention at all that Coinbase had provided severance of 6 months (which is very generous). NYT made it seems as these employees were forced out the company and lelft out in the streets
a) Omitting key details, is a very malicious type of journalism, and NY Times has been doing that for a while.
b) Also, NYTimes has been engaging in a smearing campaign against tech, since 2012, when they realized that new tech media companies are their direct competitor, and their old business is about to be disrupted. Again, this is just a journal doing a smear campaign against their direct competitors...
c) Most news organizations have been ramping up 'click-bait' type of stories to build narratives that are as controversial as possible, as it is good for their viewership stats, and ultimately their wallets.
If you believe the 'follow the money' mantra, it is very reasonable to believe that NY Times is very biased, and untrustworthy. Someone might say it is cynical, but the fact that they are omitting details, makes them very suspect in their motivations.
They did mention this: "When Coinbase announced it would be opening an office in Portland, Ore., several Black employees in the compliance department who worked remotely were told to move there or reapply for new jobs, four former employees said." They then state the sole white employee on the team did not have to relocate. That isn't necessarily hard evidence of anything on its own, but fits the general pattern described in the rest of the story.
> In a previous article, NYT failed to mention at all that Coinbase had provided severance of 6 months (which is very generous). NYT made it seems as these employees were forced out the company and lelft out in the streets
The departures described in this story all occurred prior to Coinbase's no-politics severance offer.
> Omitting key details, is a very malicious type of journalism, and NY Times has been doing that for a while.
I'm not sure what key details are omitted here. The rest of your argument, to me, is very conspiratorial. The NYT certainly has a point of view, and no one's denying that. But considering that NYT has had incredibly strong financial results over the past 5 years, I find it difficult to believe that anti-tech stories are all part of a secret smear campaign to undermine a supposed business competitor.
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-...
"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.
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.
That's also my experience with the media on the left. It's not straight-up fake news. But it's more misleading news. The infamous "women earn 78 cents for every dollar a man make". Which gives you the impression that a man and a woman both working at the same role doing the same work and woman makes 20% less than man. While in reality this is just an abject misrepresentation of the actual stat and weaponized for political gain. But unfortunately, this will not qualify as fake news.
I mean the inciting incident for this was the protests against Police Brutality and Black Lives Matter as a response to the George Floyd killings specifically.
We're not talking about politically correct speech, or "safe spaces" or "cancel culture" or people getting fired over bad twitter joke.
The context here is a societal-wide movement to take meaningful action on data-supported systemic inequalities and discrimination, action that will require political will, individual will, and yes, major corporate support to have any likelihood of success.