“No politics” Coinbase rolls out feature to promote crypto-friendly politicians
web3isgoinggreat.com
web3isgoinggreat.com
In the blog post she references (but, tellingly, does not link) Armstrong says specifically that Coinbase will engage in politics around crypto:
>We focus minimally on causes not directly related to the mission:
>Policy decisions: If there is a bill introduced around crypto, we may engage here, but we normally wouldn’t engage in policy decisions around healthcare or education for example.
>...
>Political causes: We don’t advocate for any particular causes or candidates internally that are unrelated to our mission, because it is a distraction from our mission.
[0] https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-comp...
Shoving politician rankings into their user facing app to attempt to get customers directly involved in their political lobbying is a bit too much. People would absolutely criticize other tech companies for doing this.
This is standard procedure for most journalists - they prefer to present only their interpretation (or spin) of events, rather than let their audience form their own opinion.
See for example how many stories of someone making offensive statements omit quoting those statements. And if you'll allow me to reach a bit, it seems the cruder and more unpersuasive the statements are, the more likely they are to be quoted, while any more intellectual, compelling reasoning gets omitted.
Edit: Flimm points out that in this instance, there is a link. So the article merely misrepresents it, and does not also omit it, which I maintain is the norm.
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.
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".
> 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.
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.
First off, if you are working for coinbase and you can't handle it supporting politicians that aren't trying to regulate crypto out of existence, then you have no business working there.
2ndly, why? are you so defined by your politics? 99% of companies donate to politicians I fundamentally disagree with. I guess its easy for you to be that way and hard for me because you have choice and I don't.
3rdly, For coinbase, they don't want people discussing politics at work. I wish my company had this policy, as I am sick and tired of people talking about politics.
What I don’t want:
CEO: I don’t believe in eating tunafish, we will stop getting lunch from Marco’s Tacos cuz they also sell tuna salad! We’re providing a link so you can donate to the Tuna fund, it’s not mandatory, but it’s a great cause!
On the surface this is fine. However, a politician is not only a basketball advocate, this person will have thoughts on abortion, civil rights, healthcare, etc.
Now, just because I like basketball so much I want to work for a basketball company doesn't mean I like basketball more than my healthcare, right to bodily autonomy, or my right to marry who I want to. So is it not within reasonable expectation for me to be upset at a company that actively supports politicians that want to end my marriage or strip me of fundamental civil rights?
This is why a strict "no politics", (while still a cop-out imo because taking no side is implicitly siding with the oppressor), is the only logically consistent attitude to take if you don't want to "be political" at work. You don't get to use basketball, or crypto for that matter, as a shield against criticism for supporting someone that wants to raise taxes or cut healthcare spending.
The argument is not "I don't think crypto companies should support crypto politicians" the argument is "You cannot ignore the negative externalities of single-issue voting". If you vote for a pro-crypto politician that also supports, say, killing toddlers if they don't pass 1st grade math class; you can't ignore the fact he wants to kill toddlers just because he is also pro-crypto. It's ethically negligent to do so.
----
For your 3rdly point: You forfeit this option when the boss decides to talk THEIR politics at work.
To be fair, coinbase's opinion is actually that an employee cannot support candidate B WITH COINBASE'S MONEY.
Because once you start promoting individuals based on a single issue you agree with, you've become a mark. Your vote, your support is easy to get by simply paying the bare minimum lip service to the cause.
I could run for office on a platform of polluting the environment, defining abortion to include straight up murdering babies up to 9 months old, mandating each student carries a long gun with a minimum 20 round capacity, arson, rape, and pillaging. But as long as I'm also pro-crypto, Coinbase will support me. Which includes, if not implicit support for the rest of my positions, at least tolerance of them. Especially if I'm the only pro-crypto politician on the docket.
And as long as my pro-crypto stance is a minority one, I don't even have to be successful in advancing pro-crypto laws.
The net effect of the stance of supporting politicians on a single issue is that you wind up supporting horrible politicians and horrible people.
What one should do, and is the much harder path, is to petition your current politicians to adopt your views. To convince them that either enough people want it or that it would be good for the people and they will thank you for it by continuing to vote for you.
But still, "politics" is a lot like null, it's a greedy term. You really can't do "some politics" or "politics, but just in this one area". Once you introduce the term, you now have to be aware of it everywhere.
But that works. I know one guy who had his Chief of Staff write his Wikipedia.
Lobbying politicians further the interests of the company obviously doesn't count.
Nah. "No politics" simply means "no politics I disagree with".
So here "no politics" appears to mean "only the politics that the CEO personally likes". Which, fine, CEOs can do that. But that doesn't mean that people can't point out the hypocrisy of a "no politics" stand that doesn't actually mean "no politics". Which I think is always the case with "no politics" stands, really. It's a way for powerful ingroups to deny that outgroup issues should even be discussed.