I know I'm late to the conversation, but this Coinbase post is...bad

it's Not Good, folks

Erica Joy has a lot of important background information in her thread https://twitter.com/EricaJoy/status/1310741861967904768

there's a couple of key quotes from the post I wanna highlight. First is Armstrong's thesis statement:

"In short, I want Coinbase to be laser focused on achieving its mission, because I believe that this is the way that we can have the biggest impact on the world."

He wants Coinbase to maximize its impact on the world, but..._what_ impact. To what end? For what purpose?

Coinbase having an impact isn't an inherently good thing.

_Even_ if Coinbase having some impact level I >> 0 is good, having impact level J >> I isn't inherently better

The next bit I want to highlight is Armstrong's "pivot":

"The reason is that while I think these efforts are well intentioned, they have the potential to destroy a lot of value at most companies, both by being a distraction, and by creating internal division."

He is concerned about destroying value. Not about impact on the world, but value - implicitly either shareholder value, or value of the impact of the company's core goals.

I don't think you have to agree with him that that matters _at all_.

Another bit to focus on is where he tries to use social-justice language to oppose taking action:

"Lastly, it would go against our principles of inclusion and belonging to be more of an activist company on issues outside of our core mission. We have people with many different backgrounds and viewpoints at Coinbase, and even if we all agree that something is a problem," (cont)

"...we may not agree on how to actually go solve it."

To which I say: this is actually an amazing point, but not the one he thinks

This is a _perfect_ example of the thing where people see racism as "seeing race" or "letting race affect your behavior", vs _systemic oppression_ on the axis of race

He is seeing _inclusion and belong_ as itself inherently the goal. I do not agree with that. I do not think those are good goals.

They can highly correlate with things that are good, and also their absence can correlate with things that are bad.

BUT

It depends on what people, ideas, and behaviors you are including. It depends on what you are letting belong.

There's a great @PhilosophyTube video that hits on this distinction - in it Olly talks about the "Friend/Enemy Distinction" and how that is different for "left ideas" and "right ideas"

"Inclusion and belonging" are desirable if they are about ensuring that those who are systemically disadvantaged and oppressed are included, are able to feel like they belong. They are good _because_ they oppose those systemic forces.

They aren't even inherently good if they oppose some arbitrary systemic force! There can be good systemic forces! Inclusion and belonging are important as a means of deconstructing oppression, when they are _in service of deconstructing oppression_.

If you want to spend the morning with some tough thoughts, consider how this principle applies to violence. I don't believe violence is inherently bad, nor anti-violence inherently good. It depends on who it is being wielded by, to what effect, etc.

Bringing things back to Armstrong's Coinbase post, I want to leave with one last notion. The post is seeking to fully address putting limits on the socially-minded activity of a company focused on a particular problem.

IF you assume that the corporation must be preserved, etc, etc, I do think this is an eventually necessary circle to square. Certainly VCs like Paul Graham think so, given his positive response to the essay.

While I don't accept this premise, _IF_ you do, there are still better ways to address this. You can have boundaries on "how much time you spend on this": you can have fucking principles.

If what you are steadfast on is a set of clearly expressed principles, then when an issue crops up, you can require decisions to be made in the context of those principles, and then move on.

The problem is that companies are faced with two options:
* have actually good principles, and thus pay some financial and competitive penalty that comes along with it
* have bad principles, and be exposed for who you are, and have trouble keeping talent

they want the bad principles (profit!), but the Good Vibes that come with good ones.

Fuck that.