There is a pattern of behavior minimizing the scope and impact of abusive or discriminatory actions across the tech industry, and it is very prevalent on this site as well.

The simple reality is that unless an employee is able to obtain clear, slam-dunk evidence of directly legally actionable abuse or misconduct, then it is a huge personal risk to come forward. Most businesses that are large enough to have systemic problems have enormous resources to litigate against those claims.

In contrast, for employees to collect and use evidence, it is required that they: a) experience the abuse or discrimination, repeatedly b) collect evidence and documentation of that behaviour c) exfiltrate that evidence in contravention of legal contracts that can include NDAs, binding arbitration clauses, morality/non desparagement clauses, etc d) be in a strong enough financial position to defend against litigation e) be confident enough in their own skills, reputation, and network to be able to give up future career prospects based on A-D.

And this is just from the 5 minutes it took me to compose this message.

I get that HN is a bastion of support for meritocracy, and that founder worship is a strong bias for many on this forum, but as a community, and as an industry we have got to stop undermining and destroying the folks trying to hold people and firms accountable for bad behavior.

You are correct that the people in the article that either filed complaints, or spoke with the New York Times risked repercussions, but not all of the folks the Times spoke with are identified. People were willing to talk, but not necessarily on the record, or to be identified. That is because they are fearful of reprisal, based on past experiences and observations.

That is the biggest challenge for people confronting systemic issues like racism, poverty, homelessness, or any number of topics. It's not enough for victims to stand up for themselves, because there is a systemic imbalance in the ability to pursue remedies through the courts or other means. Getting justice in civil matters often boils down to the size of a victims pocket book (and especially in contrast to pocket books of the people or organizations that have made that person a victim). There are so many individuals who have left the tech industry after experiencing bad behaviour, discrimination, and abuse, and any one of those people could be the next Hedy Lamarr or Philip Emeagwali, and the industry is worse for not having those people in it.

Again, as a community we do our peers a disservice by not trusting them when they say there is a problem, especially when they are so consistently proven right.

You're arguing against a straw man here. I did not say that the only acceptable proof was an on the record statement. Anonymous corroboration or reporting a general description of an e-mail to preserve anonymity would be fine. There's nothing even like that.

>Getting justice in civil matters often boils down to the size of a victims pocket book

That's not really true. Susan Fowler blew up Uber with a single blog post. The difference is making specific accusations and providing some level of detail. There's essentially none of that in the NYTimes piece.

And you are arguing in bad faith; there are several parts of the article that detail exactly what you are looing for.

In the second paragraph, the article indicates that 11 of the folks who left notified HR or their managers.

In the third paragraph one of the named victims states she made several reports.

In the sixth paragraph 5 on the record employees and 18 off the record employees, and internal documents and recordings are claimed as evidence.

Despite this, Coinbase only reports three official complaints in the year many of these folks left.

Coupled with the stream of hot garbage that Brian Armstrong has proposed trying to position as being "Mission Focused", in the middle of a pandemic, massive, ongoing riots, and political instability just illustrates how utterly tone deaf the leadership at Coinbase is.

> Susan Fowler blew up Uber with a single blog post.

Yes, you correct. You also have to look at the facts; Susan is an excellent writer, and based on her book, she already had some measure of experience speaking truth to power. Coupled with the fact that she was already recognized as a talented engineer and a published author, it's not surprising her blog post was as well received as it was.

Susan also wrote about her experience with her own voice and had receipts to show how bad it was. I certainly don't want to down play the issues that women in tech face, but it's also well known that people of color frequently have different social and economic circumstances than white or white-presenting folks (and it's not me saying this -- she calls out in her book the casual anti-semitism she faced from folks who didn't know she is Jewish).

Everything you list is an accusation. What I am looking for is:

(1) Person X said this racist thing happened.

(2) The event in (1) is (a) true, and (b) backed up by a corroborating witness, this email, some document, etc

>You also have to look at the facts; Susan is an excellent writer, and based on her book, she already had some measure of experience speaking truth to power.

If the NY Times doesn't have reporters that can do that then they should fire the ones they have and find some that can.

You are offhandedly discounting the reported experience of more than 20 people, many of whom have come forward with evidence.

You did that! You said Susan Fowler was effective because she was able to speak truth to power. Implying that this article is ineffective because the writer doesn't know how to speak truth to power.

>You are offhandedly discounting the reported experience of more than 20 people, many of whom have come forward with evidence.

No I didn't. I said I tend to believe them.

I would like to challenge the perception of issues as systematic being a universal fact. You first have to accept that groups, as opposed to individuals, are responsible for action. This doesn't seem to hold up. Any delineation of people into any sort of groups is arbitrary. Corporations are legal fiction. Actions are perpetrated by individuals.

I would like to live in a society that optimizes for enthusiastic consent in, and at-will termination of all interactions and relationships for any reason whatsoever. This seems to be the only reasonable way to live in a society of people who disagree about fundamental things. To take this to the extreme, if you want to run a company full of racists, and be racist in your hiring policy, you should be able to do so. It is quite possible to support this standard of liberty without being racist oneself. I may disagree with what you say and all.

wrote in a Slack message that was viewed by The Times.

according to a copy of the message seen by The Times

according to a copy reviewed by The Times.

The 'other side' of this is a Coinbase blogpost that says 'we hired a consultant who told us we don't have such problems'. You are certainly free to decide which of these is better supported.

That's like scientists finding a negative result, and not getting it published. Skilled scientists don't let that happen often.

Did the editorial show that Coinbase is engaging in illegal discrimination practices? No, but they sure implied it.

Would it be problematic to encourage diverse representations to show up for company photos, if you did not ignore them for advancement? On its own, I think that's just common sense, and taking some PR advantage of the costly diversity programs.

A random/unplanned company photo I was in, was circulated online, to falsely claim that my company only hires white people. Felt really bad, especially for my multiracial colleagues present in that photo. Can you even give this movement what they want, without accusations of pandering/fake concern?

> Not specifically require Black employees to relocate to different cities while giving non-Black employees the opportunity to work out out whatever the nearest office is.

I refuse to believe that Coinbase based that decision on skin color, and I find it hard to believe anyone else sees that differently. As such, to follow this rule, you would have to overturn your decision -- based on rationale --, because it happens to negatively impact a person with a specific skin color. How is this a decent decision: "Sorry Chad, we can't let you work from home to care for your mother, because we just told some black-skinned support engineers to relocate, and we don't want to specifically require black people to relocate, and allow white people to work from home."? How is that fair? To who? It suddenly becomes justified if Chad was black, or if you allow everyone to work from home?

Sure. You can:

* Not specifically require Black employees to relocate to different cities while giving non-Black employees the opportunity to work out out whatever the nearest office is.

* Treat Black employees respectfully in meetings.

* Not allow people who manage Black employees to mock them for being drug dealers and for carrying weapons.

* Not allow recruiting team members to discuss the merits of different races and their likelihood of success as candidates in hiring team meetings.

This all seems pretty basic?

Incidentally: I don't know what the "movement" you're referring to is. I've been in this industry since the 1990s, and these seem like rules that would have been equally germane in 1995.

I'm not trying to zing you with that, but am noticing a persistent subtext on this thread that attempts to equate Black people not wanting to be discriminated against with some larger basket of "far-left politics". Plenty of conservatives have the same objections to racial bias as whatever the "movement" we're talking about here is. Ironically, among Democrats (Black people overwhelmingly identify with the Democratic party for historical reasons), Black people trend significantly more conservative.

Are you under the impression that Coinbase makes Work-From-Home decisions based on the skin-color of their employees?

If yes (which it seems like to me), I'd like to learn more about that, and your reasoning. Am I oblivious to modern work-place racism? Imperceptive? Naive? Defending vile racists? I'd like to reconsider those questions on a more informed ground. My (and your) view kinda hinges on that impression and its truth.

I can understand why Black employees would have that impression, but if it's not true, then I also see that as problematic.

> I am under the impression that Coinbase demanded that the Black employees of the compliance group relocate to PDX so that the whole group could work out of the same office, and then exempted a white worker in the same group from that requirement.

Did it matter for this demand that one group was Black and the other was white? Or did this just happened to be the unfortunate outcome, which is bad optics if you focus on skin color attributes, and such bad optics should be avoided?

I am still not too sure. Can you remove "Black" and "white" from your impression and still say the same thing, or is it essential to your impression, and telling of a problematic work environment?

We don’t have details who exactly was required to relocate and who weren’t. Coinbase’s compliance department is huge made of multiple teams, so it’s not just the handful of people mentioned in this article.

(I wonder how many people apply this level of corroboration requirement to forward-looking statements about the benefits of bitcoin?)

Take this article on the US Meat Animal Research Center (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/dining/animal-welfare-at-...) as a good example of an organizational misconduct investigation done right. Dr. Keen told the Times they're doing some abusive things to the animals. So the Times talked to a bunch of employees, and reviewed a bunch of documents, in order to make sure they could accurately and concretely describe specific instances of wrongdoing. This is the quality of journalism the New York Times is generally known for. It would be a much worse article - both less fair to the research center and less convincing about the accusations - if they hadn't dug in like that.

It seems like your criticism is that the article implies that Coinbase's executive management has racial bias problems, and the article doesn't establish that bias to your satisfaction. But that's always going to be a problem with news articles. Some will present evidence that is dispositive to you, some won't.

I find the reporting in this piece damning. I understand how others would view it more charitably. That's what we're meant to be discussing. Less productive: a discussion of the legitimacy of the reporting itself.

(For what it's worth, the article's lede is well-corroborated, and I agree it provides strong evidence of a serious problem with retention of black employees.)