281–290 of 320 posts
> We are committed to maintaining an environment that is safe, supportive and welcoming to employees of all backgrounds. These are inexpensive words said by every company. I feel that most companies, after uttering them, don't actually do anything to follow through.
The article explicitly mentions Coinbase has already followed through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure that's true. An allegation of racial abuse you defend against by saying "I did not do that", hopefully with evidence on your side (other people were at the meeting, maybe). 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...
You can always claim not to have acted with bias but if there’s strong evidence that you did then I’m not sure how one is supposed to defend against it, in an informal sense (IANAL). I would just admit it, make amends, and try to move on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes isn't this a rather common strategy, "Be pro-active, not reactive". 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 publici…
I get that this strategy can work, but are there really that many people who will be swayed by a pr statement from coinbase? I'm primed to assume their version is filled with lies and spin, and I'm waiting for the piece in the NYT to cut through the corporate pr bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes isn't this a rather common strategy, "Be pro-active, not reactive". 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 publici…
I get that this strategy can work, but are there really that many people who will be swayed by a pr statement from coinbase? I'm primed to assume their version is filled with lies and spin, and I'm waiting for the piece in the NYT to cut through the corporate pr bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get that this strategy can work, but are there really that many people who will be swayed by a pr statement from coinbase? I'm primed to assume their version is filled with lies and spin, and I'm waiting for the piece in the NYT to cut through the corporate pr bullshit.
Well you have an eye for objectivity. Many people don't. And whenever there are two conflicting versions of a story it sows some doubt on both of them. We know this from politics already. So from a pure PR and game-theoretic standpoint I think they made the right (pro-active) move.
The NYT is far from objective, so this may actually work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And "above politics" is the same as "not involved in politics". Call it a side/position/stance/perspective/angle or whatever else. It's still means they're not involved.
It means they’re involved in preserving the present state of affairs in politics. We can call this being apolitical if we’d like, we just need to be clear about what we mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And "above politics" is the same as "not involved in politics". Call it a side/position/stance/perspective/angle or whatever else. It's still means they're not involved.
It means they’re involved in preserving the present state of affairs in politics. We can call this being apolitical if we’d like, we just need to be clear about what we mean.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article explicitly mentions Coinbase has already followed through.
Yes... By asking people to quit or shut up about its racism, IIRC
You mention "Coinbase's racism" - do you have any additional info about the case providing the basis for this certainty?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes... By asking people to quit or shut up about its racism, IIRC
No, you don't remember correctly. The article contains details of how the handled the investigations. You mention "Coinbase's racism" - do you have any additional info about the case providing the basis for this certainty?
It's no surprise that Coinbase touts some other changes. But these are made under duress, facing the imminent PR crisis that being called out in the paper of record. As such, they tell you as much about their true convictions and future actions as a confession made under torture.
As to additional info: I only have the knowledge that there is an article about to come out, and it will be weighty enough to invite an already incriminating attempt to preempt it.
I’m skeptical. I’ve worked with the NYT on a few stories; they’re incredibly thorough, and don’t publish unsubstantiated trash.
Iraq, Libya etc. would like a word.