I highly doubt that. Unrestrained political activism on either side has been shown to be a lose-lose situation for any large company. The only winning move is not to play (at work).

There’s more than two sides.

If someone went around the Coinbase office demanding that the company speak out against abortion, I'm pretty sure Armstrong would want to get rid of that guy too.

However if someone went around the office demanding that people self censor any speech deemed "political", that person would be celebrated.

You're assuming ill intent. The goal is to minimize workplace hostility, not to censor anyone. Let's say someone goes around snooping into people's conversations and overhears two coworkers casually talking about attending a protest and reports this. I'm guessing that person snooping around will be the only one who will be reprimanded.

I don't agree. In all the places I've worked, even the most apolitical ones, someone would be viewed quite negatively if they walked into the break room and tried to break up a private political discussion.

So then someone who was attempting to enforce the CEO's mission would be viewed negatively? This feels self-contradictory.

You can't say "We won’t: Debate causes or political candidates internally" (quoting Armstrong) but simultaneously say that anyone who attempts to enforce that would be viewed negatively. That would imply that Armstrong would view himself negatively for enforcing his own rule.

No one's disputing that.

The grandparent comment is disputing just that.