To be fair, you're using a corporate blog post sharing an internal email responding to a story that hasn't been published yet, to jump to a series of unrelated conclusions. Namely, extrapolating that unobserved reactions to a story no one has read are a 'mob', and the 'mob' is 'outraged' instead of being concerned about 'the truth', and it'd be better for Coinbase to ignore it.

It's also striking that this reaction could be addressed at itself.

Stealing this from other posts above, apologies friends: under those assumptions, the disagreement you have with Coinbase's choice to address it is sufficient to negate your conclusion - if there is no mob, and no story, and the corporation is trying to get in advance of it, it's likely the story is damaging enough that they need to, it's not pleading with a 'mob'.

I've played this game before. Why should I expect it to be any different from the usual political social media cancel culture nonsense it always is? I'd love for my assumptions to be wrong though.

It's worth discussing but I'm not sure how to move in with the entrypoint, it feels like 'i know, its a strawman, but its not because the strawman is always real'

Have you heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?