The Coinbase blog post is directly self-contradictory. First it lists some things that they focus on in order to accomplish their mission. One of those is this:

> Enable belonging for everyone: We work to create an environment where everyone is welcome and can do their best work, regardless of background, sexual orientation, race, gender, age, etc.

Then, just a few short paragraphs later, they list things that they focus minimally on, because they are "not directly related to the mission." One of those things is this:

> Broader societal issues: We don’t engage here when issues are unrelated to our core mission, because we believe impact only comes with focus.

It doesn't get more blatantly contradictory than that.

I think what they're saying is that will work to make the environment within the company as welcoming as possible. However, they will not try and solve that problem for society at large. Although you may disagree with the approach, it doesn't seem contradictory to me.

And again, it's a false notion to think that those are two separate things. You can't, to use example that I hope is obvious, support making your work environment welcoming to everyone regardless of sexual orientation, while also refusing to oppose or even discuss a political movement or politician who would throw people in jail for having a certain sexual orientation.

While I would find that political position abhorrent, I wouldn't expect and certainly not demand that my company issue a specific public statement denouncing it.

You don’t need to expect or demand that, although I certainly would. The problem is when a company claims they care about that issue as part of their mission, but then prohibits employees from taking a stand on that issue or even discussing that issue.

Why is that a problem?

People can care about an issue without taking a stand or even discussing the issue.

This "with us or against us" attitude is precisely what makes it difficult to get along with activists.

The only reason it is "a problem" is that it doesn't conform to the long term goals of the activists. The company needs to have goals that are separate from those of the activists in order to survive.

What about being able to discuss that internally with coworkers? Because the company prohibits that as well.

My wager is they de facto won't prohibit any discussion between consenting and mutually interested coworkers that doesn't negatively impact their work output, which seems "fair enough" to me.

So you'd be okay working for a company with policies you don't agree with because "they probably won't enforce them"?