Coinbase's New 'Direction' Is Censorship, Leaked Audio Reveals (vice.com) 188
An anonymous reader shares a report: Brian Armstrong, CEO of cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, revealed in a late September blog post that the company would prohibit employees from debating political or social issues, deeming this a "distraction" from the company's mission. Armstrong doubled down on his position during a virtual all-hands held on October 1, billed as an "AMA" (for "ask me anything"), from which Motherboard obtained audio. The AMA was meant to further explain the company's new "apolitical" direction for those who might consider accepting a severance package that was offered to any employee who felt "uncomfortable." Executives also explained when and where dissent would be appropriate, and explained why they required employees to delete specific political Slack messages. This, at a company that works with cryptocurrencies intended to replace government banking systems in order to create a more free world. During the meeting, Armstrong claimed there is a "silent majority" at Coinbase that agreed with his decision but feared reprisal from colleagues. Armstrong and Coinbase leadership, however, failed to soothe fears that this policy would police employees if they voiced opinions that did not align with Armstrong or this "silent majority."
One former Coinbase employee who left the company after the AMA and to whom Motherboard provided anonymity due to fear of industry reprisal said that these assurances were insufficient and workers feared surveillance and censorship. These fears are not unfounded. Emile Choi, Coinbase's chief operating officer, explained that at least two employees were asked to delete Slack posts, and that HR head L.J. Brock "proactively reached out to employees to explain why their posts would be taken down. He had a very productive conversation with both of them and they understood the context," she said. One employee asked if Coinbase leadership thought that this was "taking away employee power to start a discussion except with 300 character questions" in an AMA format. "It seems like Coinbase is stunting internal discussion." Choi said that the entire executive team was aligned on Armstrong's post and policy, and that the new "culture is focused on what unites us and what we face in the world, which is building toward our mission," Choi said. "The goal was not intended to be harsh, it wasn't intended to land in a way where people felt they were being policed."
One former Coinbase employee who left the company after the AMA and to whom Motherboard provided anonymity due to fear of industry reprisal said that these assurances were insufficient and workers feared surveillance and censorship. These fears are not unfounded. Emile Choi, Coinbase's chief operating officer, explained that at least two employees were asked to delete Slack posts, and that HR head L.J. Brock "proactively reached out to employees to explain why their posts would be taken down. He had a very productive conversation with both of them and they understood the context," she said. One employee asked if Coinbase leadership thought that this was "taking away employee power to start a discussion except with 300 character questions" in an AMA format. "It seems like Coinbase is stunting internal discussion." Choi said that the entire executive team was aligned on Armstrong's post and policy, and that the new "culture is focused on what unites us and what we face in the world, which is building toward our mission," Choi said. "The goal was not intended to be harsh, it wasn't intended to land in a way where people felt they were being policed."
Yeah, we mean it (Score:5, Insightful)
No politics means no politics. Do it on your own time and your own dime.
Re:Yeah, we mean it (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. Don't mix work and politics is a famous guiding principle for the workplace for decades. Workplaces that adhere to that principle aren't toxic. Those that don't are.
Re:Yeah, we mean it (Score:4, Insightful)
I recall someone on Slashdot complaining about having homosexuality "rammed down their throat". Turns out what they meant was gay people talking about their partner or holding their hand in public.
Now everyone at Coinbase has to guess what random action or statement will be considered political by the boss.
Re:Yeah, we mean it (Score:4, Insightful)
I recall a conversation I once had with someone on the subject of same-sex marriage. My stance was simple: I don't care, and the government shouldn't be involved in ANY marriage.
This was immediately attacked as being homophobic. It wasn't enough for the person I was speaking with for me to not care one way or the other what other people do. If I did not actively, openly support that person's position, I was to be labeled a homophobe (which is also a stupid term, I'm not afraid of it, I just don't care what consenting adults choose to do to/with each other).
This is the part that is bothersome to me. Go do you, leave me out of it, and I'll do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
My mother who cannot resist bringing up conservative politics whenever I call her, once asked me my stance on gay marriage. Taking what I thought was the safe approach, I said that I liked Dick Cheney's (the VP at the time) view to leave this up to the states. A solid conservative pro-states'-rights stance. Her response was "I wouldn't believe that you of all people would want to dismantle marriage!" Clearly she was reading form a script from one of her many weird web sites, but I learned my lesson to av
Re: (Score:3)
That's very shallow, black-or-white thinking. Not everyone has to be advocating at all times for the values they believe in. It can burn people out, and depending on how those messages are delivered, can be stressful, bullying, or relationship-destroying.
People can donate to causes that reflect those values, or vote for leaders that have those values, or other ways I haven't thought of.
There's a far difference between "nothing" and "not doing the things that I want you to do in the way I want them done".
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with that?
Re: (Score:2)
It implies that the behaviour is wrong, but you are willing to ignore it.
Re:Yeah, we mean it (Score:4, Insightful)
While people may not oppose what 2 consenting adults do in private, they may also, acceptable hold the opinion that it is "morally wrong" to do so, perhaps for religious reasons.
I hear the view is held by a large number of the muslim faith?
I don't think that the statement implies they think it is wrong, but on the other side, there is nothing wrong with believing it is wrong.
The world didn't magically turn a switch and everyone accepts homosexuality as "normal".
And from what I"ve seen, not everyone does.
I hear a lot of people saying how they are really turned off about seeing more and more homosexual behavior on TV, with guys kissing each other on commercials, etc.
If we are to be sensitive to everyone's' feeling out there, likely as not it would be best to not display behavior that many out there, while they will tolerate it, don't want to see or are offended to see this behavior in public.
Not saying that's me, but I do understand a LOT of people out there still feel this way.
I'd dare say still a majority of people in the world while tolerating homosexuality by consenting adults, don't think it is normal or right.
And again, long time religious belief...you're not going to change centuries of teachings on this in 10 years you know.
But PDA by heterosexual folks, especially in the work place should be avoided too....regardless of what you want to do with your pee pee....work is not the place to display your affections or preferences.
No one really wants to hear or see it.
Re:Yeah, we mean it (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, so much is wrong with your post that it's hard to know where to even start.
There is zero reason that marriage should be needed for any of these things, except for the fact that we've never bothered to make an alternate structure for some of them.
Joint property? WTF are you talking about? My wife and I just refinanced our house, and it didn't matter if we were married or not. Our names are both on the house. I've had family members who all owned a 20% share of a property. A friend's family made a corporation in order to keep substantial property assets in the family.
End of life decisions? Living will. Probably not as common as they should be, but there's nothing requiring marriage to have one. We already have a structure to indicate what someone's end-of-life wishes are, and who can make decisions about their care.
I agree hospital visitation is a little trickier. This is definitely a place where we could leverage EHRs to provide an alternate method to record who should have access to a patient and who can make health care decisions.
None of these things need marriage. And if you thought for 2 seconds, you'd know that. Parents aren't married to their kids, and yet they can handle all of the situations you described.
And damn are you ignorant and super irritating to talk to.
Re: (Score:2)
The politization of everything (Score:2)
In a his recent book Live Not By Lies [amazon.com], Ron Dreher argues that totalitarianism, fascism, and the politicization of everything are all roughly the same thing (and that they are contrary to human flourishing). Dreher cites Benito Mussollini's definition of totalitarianism/fascism: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." It's a lengthy argument - see the book for details.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really...only from the recent generations' overly sensitivity to ANY and all topics, trying to turn them all into political topics and issues.
I've lived in this world long enough and been int he workforce long enough to know this is NOT required and is really a very RECENT issue.
IN the past, no one got mad about anything, for the most part it just never came up.
There is so much more to talk about, and ev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, when actually implemented, 'no politics in the workplace' usually comes down to 'don't complain about the politics of the in-group', with people who align with management free to say and do what they like and anyone who complains is bringing in 'politics'. All it tends to be is a way of cementing the politics of the group in charge as 'normal' and 'baseline', and anything they do not like is 'politics'.
I still don't have a problem with it. I feel like the company can enforce whatever corporate culture they want in the workplace, as long as it's not abusive to the employees.
For instance, if I work at a defense contractor, and I bring in opinions that are anti military-industrial complex to the workplace...well, why are you working there if you feel that way? It makes sense that the company only wants people who are in favor of government money spent on the military industry, or at least can shut up about i
Re: (Score:2)
Criticism of your employer is iffy though. You should be allowed to criticize, it's not the same as insulting. You should be able to say, "I think the direction we're taking in this project is going to backfire on us" without getting fired. Or, "why do we keep partnering with this other company, it always goes over budget and ends in shouting?"
Headline is wrong (Score:2)
The headline of the post seems to be wrong.
Reading the coinbase letter, it seems to clearly state that the company is asking employes not to "debate political or social issues" at work. That's not censorship.
letter: https://blog.coinbase.com/coin... [coinbase.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not censorship.
They are perfectly welcome to espouse their political view OUTSIDE of the work environment.
There should be no problem with that?
I mean, most places of business limit what can be done on business property with business property, like you can't watch pr0n at work on your office computer....
Re: (Score:2)
No politics means no politics. Do it on your own time and your own dime.
There are many things you can't talk about at work.
Just do your job, leave the personal stuff outside.
Re: Yeah, we mean it (Score:2)
Toxic? Gimme a break. Poltics is what's toxic. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Eating a veggie sandwich for lunch? Stop virtue signalling your politics at us! Clear your desk!
You will be fine eating your veggie sandwich for as long as you don't continue screaming at others enjoying their meat sandwiches. The difference is minding your own business vs. forcing it on others.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like hell. No casual conversation or jokes or discussion of news at work. Just turn up, quietly do your work, only speak when necessary to complete your tasks.
I'd avoid companies like that. I'm not such a snowflake that people with different opinions upset me. In fact I like that. I like a casual environment where I can make friends with the people I work with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like hell. No casual conversation or jokes or discussion of news at work. Just turn up, quietly do your work, only speak when necessary to complete your tasks.
How does that straw you built look to you? I ask because it is obvious and and looks stupid to the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it people who complain about "SJWs" seem to be living in fear while the rest of us have somehow found some good working environments?
Before you say it's because I'm an SJW you also told me that SJWs always turn on each other, so how come that's never happened to me?
Re: (Score:2)
How is calling for tolerance and diversity of opinion causing this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is calling for tolerance and diversity of opinion causing this?
If the opinion is not relevant to the work being performed, no one at work needs to hear it.
On the job, keep your opinions to yourself. That is the rule.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Tolerance does not extend to intolerance, that's the well known paradox.
I won't defend Cisco, I don't know the details of the case.
Re: (Score:2)
McCarthy wasn't intolerant of intolerance, he was intolerant of differing political views.
It's not hypocrisy, it's simply impossible to be tolerant of someone who is harming you. If someone tries to stab you then you can't tolerate them doing it, you are compelled to object to their stabbing. The harm may be a bit less direct sometimes but the principal is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose "all lives matter" is at least defensible, especially if the individual does not understand the origin and the issue with it. It was designed to be a deliberate trap after all.
Re: (Score:2)
The very first time I saw something about Black Lives Matter, my very first thought was "ALL lives matter". I genuinely believe that the root problem is that the police are too willing to resort to potentially lethal violence and that many officers seem to default to violence (or at least have violence on a hair trigger) in the face of any resistance or even simple confusion.
That's not to say that racism in law enforcement isn't also a problem that needs to be addressed, but without the hair trigger for vio
Re: (Score:2)
When people say "black lives matter", why are they saying it? It should be obvious, should be a given, right?
So would you say there is a need to say "all moves matter" too?
Re: (Score:2)
As I was saying before some stupid yet sensitive snowflake got its panties in a twist and tried to silence the truth...
No politics IS politics. Same as no dissent.
It's quite literally why copyright laws came to be - to silence the dissent with the politics of a tyrannical ruler. [wikipedia.org]
There's no such thing as being apolitical.
If someone or something is "apolitical" that only means that they are favoring the current political situation. No change is fine for them.
Cause right now THEY have power at the expense of ot
Re: (Score:2)
No Politics at Work, Only Work (Score:3, Interesting)
Coinbase's New 'Direction' Is Censorship, Leaked Audio Reveals
Sounds more like the direction is to make it policy that employees leave politics at the door.
Goodyear dropped the ball hard on this, claiming their policy on politics was "zero tolerance" and then turning around and tolerating BLM and LGBT garb:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
On, now it is censorship? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: On, now it is censorship? (Score:2)
Don't you know? The Enemy(TM) is always singular!
It's actually the natural result of a lack of empathy and knowledge for The Enemy(TM) due to it being a de-facto anonymous entity that one either cannot see as a real person (see: Dunbar's number) or does not want to.
But you should be able to recognize that pattern in your own behavior very much too.
Re: (Score:2)
Might be hypocrisy, might be you are confusing different individuals as one.
Thats not how talking points work. It becomes a talking point when there is a blanket of "individuals" all saying the same stuff, until they all stop saying that, and start saying something else, but again all in unison.
They always said crypto politics is relevant (Score:2)
This, at a company that works with cryptocurrencies intended to replace government banking systems in order to create a more free world.
They always said crypto politics is relevant to the company and a valid topic for employee discussion and evangelism. Again, their policy is about keeping the focus on the company's work and only one political topic is related to this work.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's funny that they claim "This, at a company that works with cryptocurrencies intended to replace government banking systems in order to create a more free world." No no no, cryptocurrencies are doing nothing whatsoever to promote freedom, not even financial freedom. The top customers are those paranoid about government tracking of course, but the largest customer segment here are criminals with the extreme libertarians only accounting for a tiny fraction. The only inroads for cryptocurrencies
Key: FORMER employee (Score:5, Insightful)
One former Coinbase employee who left the company...assurances were insufficient and workers feared surveillance and censorship
It tells you everything you need to know that the complaints are from a person who left, who couldn't keep his politics in his metaphorical pants and just had to whip it out all the time for others to see, like it or not.
It's not censorship to say, that in some places there is a code of behaviour and conduct.
In fact, who is a code of conduct that says "no politics" any different than the craze of code of conduct items that have been sweeping every technical conference lately? After all the end goal is the same; prevention of harassment.
During the meeting, Armstrong claimed there is a "silent majority" at Coinbase that agreed with his decision
This is 100% true. I have contracted for a number of large companies and there's always a large number of people who suffer at the hands of the overly vocal and pushy. They can't really do anything but suffer under the tyranny of the loud though, because it's not enough for HR to really do anything (as if HR would do anything about anything anyway) and by and large managers are too weak to fire mildly disruptive people, or even tell them to tone it down.
By the way this applies equally to the overly political for left and right. Leave the MAGA hat at home please and also your Antifa "Fist Me" posters.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. My job is hard enough with out some blowhard bigot always running their mouth distracting everyone from their jobs. I don't care what their political stance is, even if I might agree with it, the office isn't a person's political pulpit.
Re: (Score:2)
The "silent majority" is just the speaker's bubble.
They are usually quite shocked when there is an opinion poll and the expected silent majority fails to give the right answers.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you never lied on an "anonymous" poll at work? I try to avoid them as it should be obvious when you can't share that link with your coworkers it is far from anonymous and will be used against you if you give the wrong answers.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's anonymous why not just ignore it? Since it's anonymous they can't tell that you didn't vote.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what I tend to do these days. It is much less tedious then trying to guess what they want to hear, but does risk that since the unique identifier in the link was not used that you are "participating". That can have a negative effect in theory as well, but that a chance I'm willing to take. Besides, if you do get terminated for something like that were you truly in good company?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they're not only no anonymous, they also use the lack of anonymity to berate you for not doing the survey.
I had an anonymous survey go out once, individual URLs for each staff member.
I did what you suggested. And they started telling me I needed to finish it.
When I asked how they knew I didn't do it if it was anonymous, they said "oh, well we can tell if you did it, but not what you answered", which anyone who knows anything knows is a falsehood.
Your fellow employees hate you (Score:3, Interesting)
When you're making asshole political comments at the office all the time. People around you wish you'd shut up with that crap and do your job. No one asked you what your half-informed opinion is on some random political topic.
The reaction to Coinbase is typical. Jerks who can't shut up and try to get along with people are outraged that Coinbase won't cater to jerks who can't shut up and get along with people.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want *any* company I do business with taking political positions. I *especially* don't want a company that deals in payment processing and quasi-banking operations possibly making judgements based on politics, one way or the other. It's already an unwritten rule at our company. We'll discuss politics over lunch, but never over email or chat. It's not the place for it.
It's really a double-whammy.
1. I don't want companies involved with politics, period. This is a good start. I don't care what the employees or officers do on their own time, I want the corporation out of politics.
2. Now imagine you are that company, and another company sues you for breach of contract. Or stockholders sue you for breach of fiduciary duty. Or the government sues you for whatever. All of those snarky political messages are going to be dragged out in open court, and possibly wind up in a news article about your company. Remember those FBI agents messaging each other about how they were going to do whatever it takes to prevent Trump from winning the election? Now imagine those are your employees talking about Trump/Binden/whomever, and those emails are being read into the record in a lawsuit against you.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Not getting involved is itself a position. A great historical example is IBM. They decided to ignore politics back in the 1930s.
Consumers consider politics too, e.g. the boycott of companies involved with apartheid era South Africa.
Re: (Score:3)
This seems more an argument for why politics shouldn't be in the workplace. In both cases political divides led bigotry, prejudice and ultimately violence. We can see this sort of garbage starting up in the riots here in the US today.
Pardon me if I don't want some nutter burning my cubicle down because I didn't agree with some fringe thing they heard on FOX, CNN or NPR on their way to the office.
Re: (Score:3)
IBM became part of the violence, the genocide, by trying to avoid politics.
Re: (Score:2)
You need a caveat on the whole "silence=violence" thing, which is action should only be taken in extreme cases, otherwise mind your own business.
Many people today read this as an example of why they can get in your face.
For example, you really love Biden and hate Trump:
Guy walking down the street wearing a Maga hat? Ignore.
Guy walking down the street shouting "I love Trump!"? Ignore.
Guy walking down the street in a Maga group just marching along? Ignore
Guy walking down the street calling out Biden fans and
Re: (Score:2)
If the guy is walking down the street shouting "I love Trump" then why shouldn't you have the same moral right to respond in kind? Why do they get to loudly make their views known but you don't?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to disagree. The subset of those who worked at IBM who were involved with that particular deal put money over humanity. They were not selling machines to monsters in an effort to avoid politics. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a case of them overlooking genocide because they felt murdering people on a massive scale was merely a political concern, and that they wished to remain politically neutral so their staff could work in peace.
History is full of people doing terrible things for personal gain.
Re: (Score:2)
A great historical example is IBM. They decided to ignore politics back in the 1930s.
Good point, however I think the better solution would have been to have the US government block all trade with Germany at the time. That way, the political side would stay political, and IBM would not have to make the decision.
The other factor is that economic pressure can be very useful in cases like this. The US does it to this day. If one country is heavily dependent on another for trade, the threat of cancelling that trade sometimes works better than warfare. That means, of course, maintaining trade wit
Re: (Score:2)
>"Not getting involved is itself a position."
No, "not getting involved" is code-speak on the Left for "not supporting our position."
And no, not getting involved AT WORK when being PAID by SOMEONE ELSE, is a not a "position" it is a DUTY. You don't speak for your employer, and your coworkers and customers should not be subjected to toxic stuff. Just because you think something is right doesn't mean other people you are.
>"Consumers consider politics too"
Which is fine. And guess what? The companies t
Re: (Score:3)
First I am not a nutcase.
Second, I base it on observation.
Third, I have always been a supporter of no politics/activism in a work setting, regardless of what type it is.
Fourth, I have always been a strong supporter of freedom of speech and expression, again, regardless of what type it is. But not at work.
So go flame someone else because it is badly misplaced replying to me.
Your date of leaving Coinbase "outs" you. (Score:2)
One former Coinbase employee who left the company after the AMA and to whom Motherboard provided anonymity due to fear of industry reprisal
Accepting the faux dramatics going on here, your date of leaving Coinbase "outs" you.
Re: (Score:2)
"I left because they were paying me 4 months salary to leave, and I only started 3 months ago, so I more than doubled my salary. And the other offers I was considering were still on the table."
Re: (Score:2)
And I would consider having ethics and principles, and being willing to stand by them despite a potentially negative personal outcome, to be a bonus in a candidate worthwhile of giving said prospect additional consideration. What happened here? Slashdot used to lament Google dropping âoeDonâ(TM)t be evil.â from their corporate culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution: lie on your resume.
Which gives the new employer a pretext valid cause to fire you over.
Not censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Coinbase's New 'Direction' Is Censorship, Leaked Audio Reveals "
Nice try with your headline to the article. But it is not censorship to tell employees not be political/activist while at work, on company time, or when using company resources or name (when that is not the mission of the company). It should be the *NORM*.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.. headline is bullshit. People should get to work and quit letting 'feelings' get in the way of business. Good for Coinbase.
Consistency (Score:3)
Not internal discussion, its off topic discussion (Score:4, Insightful)
"It seems like Coinbase is stunting internal discussion."
No, they are keeping internal discussion on a company resource on work related topics. Politics outside of crypto is not work related so it should go elsewhere, its off topic, ie not work.
Is it really so hard to keep one's personal politics and religion outside of your workplace?
Re: (Score:3)
"Is it really so hard to keep one's personal politics and religion outside of your workplace?"
Amen to that! :P
Re: (Score:2)
"Is it really so hard to keep one's personal politics and religion outside of your workplace?"
Amen to that! :P
As far as I know Coinbase has not banned the Hebrew language. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Hallelujah!
INB4 the libertarian excuse: (Score:2)
"But it is a [private company]! So it is [not censorship]. Since they have a [choice]!"
And if you pull the [stickers] off, it will reveal "LIESLIESLIES" tape underneath. ;)
It's not censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
it's Union Busting. Call it what it is.
SJW Union?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that union organizing is specifically protected by law at work, on break, in break rooms.
This won't stand up in court if they fire anyone who was talking about unionizing on break.
I have to agree with the policy. (Score:2)
Bigots are a blight in the work place. I've seen it from both sides, but the left has taken it to a new level. Even as a long time registered independent they tend to make the assumption that I am not only a republican, but thus a racist, sexist, homophobic, blah blah blah more batshit blah.
This is where I work. Not a place I want to be abused by aggressive, deeply prejudiced, hate speech by my coworkers. I'm glad to see a company step up and return sanity to the work environment.
Keep politics AND censorship out of work (Score:2)
It's one thing to keep politics out of work. It's yet another thing to monitor employees' social media accounts to make sure they toe the line. Surveillance implies more than just a desire for a neutral workplace.
If you're stupid enough to put politics in writing (Score:2)
In the age of 'personal truth'... (Score:2)
Politics and social issues are personal religions.
Do you want other people foisting their religion on you in the work place?
I didn't think so.
This policy is not even a little unusual (Score:2)
This is tiring (Score:2)
You don't have a right to spout whatever you wish at your job. It's pretty simple.
Job: can ask you to shut up
You: can choose to leave the job.
It's a job. Not your personal pulpit. They don't pay you to tell them your beliefs. Uncomfortable with that? Start your own company.
Censorhip? My ass! Blathering BS (Score:2)
Work related activity, right? (Score:2)
This isnâ(TM)t a ban on all political opinion, just not on company time or as a representative of the company. There are always gray areas, is demanding masks be worn in the office political? And as you become a higher profile employee it becomes more difficult to separate personal and corporate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A policy against, say, spreading proven lies or incitements to violence might be perfectly fair,
There is no one who is doing that. To be more specific, they are saying, "My opponents' opinions are inciting violence" without quantifying it, or considering whether their own speech is inciting violence (or is in fact lies).
Re: (Score:2)
A policy against, say, spreading proven lies or incitements to violence might be perfectly fair,
There is no one who is doing that. To be more specific, they are saying, "My opponents' opinions are inciting violence" without quantifying it, or considering whether their own speech is inciting violence (or is in fact lies).
QAnon
Trump saying the virus is under control, will disappear.
Trump supporting QAnon
Trump saying with zero evidence and against the findings of the Ukraine that Hunter Biden had committed crimes.
Would you like me to continue?
Re: OK so Facebook, Twitter and (Score:2)
Of course it's hypocritical. Since they all act like they are god's given holder of The universal abolute Truth and are totally "fair and balanced"... it's just that their definition of fairness is what we call their agenda.
Don't think you or me or anyone is any different.
i suspect it is an inherent property of the fundamental relativity of reality and having a neural net to process your information and trigger actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: OK so Facebook, Twitter and (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone is a hypocrite when they deny their double standard. And I see a lot of that happening.
Re: There we go again (Score:2)
Buddy, they are just the nutters. The fact that they act like they side with us is just as irrelevant as the fact that what we call "right-wing" is the nutty subculture of your particular group.
In reality, every group has nutters. And people not smart enough to tell "The Other Side(TM)"'s nutters from the entire group.
And worst of all: After a while, *because* of that process, we *become* those nutters.
I'm trying to be better than this. I'm sure you are actually a reasonable and nice person. It's just that
Re: (Score:2)
Left and right are insufficient to describe one's political opinion. Those that want less government control in their personal lives also want more government control in their social interactions.
In my reality, I see my beloved wilderness around my home die. I never see most of the animals anymore. I see trees and plants dying of thirst. I never see snow anymore. I see myself suffering through more and more blistering hot summers. I can see the harm approaching my existence And I see people say they do not give a shit about it and it is not a problem and all not real. Those same people also very often call themselves "conservative", "right-wing" or "libertarian".
There's coal and petrol workers on the other side saying their jobs are being taken away by all these environmental regulations. It's your problems versus their problems. Which is to say, politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is an interesting point. Though I think it still matters what was being said. The person holding open a door is probably not doing it out of malice. The person trash talking you probably is.
Also where would you put a person who is mugging you? Technically they're not doing it out of malice. They don't want you to be poor, they just want to have more money for themselves.