"Due to 27 different regulations in the EU alone (and more in other non-EU-countries), the administrative burden for international e-commerce is huge. Other than packaging regulations in many countries, WEEE regulations do typically not have any minimum thresholds or exceptions for SMEs. Therefore, WEEE registration and recycling fees are required in every country (separately – even within the EU) when shipping internationally. This also goes for startups and small stores which have just started selling electronics in Europe. (The laws even apply before the first sale is made.)"
When GDPR went into effect, our company had ~5 clients in the EU (out of thousands). It was cheaper to drop those 5 clients than attempt to even read and comply with the regulation. We weren’t even doing anything nefarious, it just wasn’t worth our time to spend any brainpower thinking about it.
Haven't heard of the 1995 data regulation I suppose then, or that it's mostly common sense to tell what you do with other people's personal information, but sure, drop out of the entire market over this.
I think the parent commenter was complaining about things that aren't EU-wide. This was and you're saying it's still not good enough
Er, I like GDPR, and it was EU-wide, but each member still would have to write its own framework into its legal system to implement GDPR as it saw fit. Those frameworks are all different in their detail.
E.g. Germany has the BDSG, and the UK has (had?) the DPA.
The "No politics" at Coinbase refers to topics outside of the company's core mission. Regardless of what one thinks of lobbying, seeking beneficial regulation does not contradict the spirit of "no politics at work".
I get your point, but I think it's a convenient one. I, personally, wouldn't be comfortable working at a company that is actively promoting a politician I fundamentally disagree with, and being told I can't say anything because that's "politics".
> I, personally, wouldn't be comfortable working at a company that is actively promoting a politician I fundamentally disagree 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.
Lets say I really like basketball, like a lot, so much so that I want to work at a basketball company doing something. In doing so I accept that a basketball company will want to promote politicians that will build sports centers and will promote basketball (or whatever).
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.
Agree with all you said. The company has to navigate a political (regulatory) landscape so I would expect the company to consider those aspects.
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!
That's fine that you don't feel comfortable working for such a company; I might not either. That said, I'm not being paid to espouse my personal political opinions, I'm paid to further the interests of the company (and if I can't do that in good conscience, then I should probably find new work).
in our representative system, there is no practical way to separate out political activism to one topic. What I mean is this: if there are two candidates in a race, of whom candidate A supports crypto and opposes trans healthcare; whereas candidate B opposes crypto and supports trans healthcare; then there are only two outcomes to the race. A wins or B does. If you support A "because of crypto" then you are also supporting their position on trans healthcare. You are taking a position on trans healthcare, even if that position is just "I don't care enough about it to change my material support for candidate A". The policy is saying that Coinbase can support candidate A in spite of their trans healthcare stance, while you as an employee can not support candidate B because of their trans healthcare stance - an imaginary distinction with no material political impact whatsoever.
> while you as an employee can not support candidate B because of their trans healthcare stance - an imaginary distinction with no material political impact whatsoever.
To be fair, coinbase's opinion is actually that an employee cannot support candidate B WITH COINBASE'S MONEY.
But you can support candidate A with coinbase's money, despite the fact that candidate A has non-crypto related opinions. What's worse is that candidate A might not even have a real pro-crypto stance, they just realize that crypto companies take this "no politics" stance, so it's essentially legalized bribery encouraged by the companies that take the stance
Its coinbase's money though? Are they not supposed to be able to specify how their own money is used? I'm just not sure I understand what the objection is. I don't endorse it but I don't see how this is inconsistent or hypocritical or legalized bribery or whatever
I mean, yes they can use their money however they want, its their right. All I’m saying is that “No politics” isn’t actually no politics, and I’m generally hesitant to work for or do business with any company who claims to have a no politics rule, especially if they participate in politics to further their personal interests. What it actually means is they will end up supporting mostly shady politicians who can’t get small donors to support them.
reply