Yes and no. Politics has both procedural and substantive aspects. A company choosing not to participate in politics is taking a stand about the appropriate scope of political advocacy—where, when, and how politics should play a role in society.
Companies not choosing to participate in politics is not, as some urge, de facto support of the status quo. It’s quite possible that e.g. Twitter taking a stand on some issue actually sets things back, by creating a stronger opposition.
We're kind of collapsing "politics" down a little far, right? There's "not taking a stand on the capital gains rate", and then there's "not taking a stand on whether Black people are actual people". I understand the former more than the latter. There's a line to be drawn somewhere, right? At some point on the line where you draw it, your company is IG Farben.
Politics isn’t binary. “Whether or not black people are actual people” isn’t really what’s on the table: How many black people rolled their eyes when companies released statements in support of Black Lives Matter but did nothing inside their companies to change the actual lives of black people.
Yes, since you cannot not participate in politics in reality. What you can do is not participate in active politics if you are happy with the status quo.
What is far more popular is hiding your politics behind some more lofty words (like the linked article by the Coinbase CEO trying to hide his personal politics that "economic freedom" is the most important thing behind 'this is not politics' and 'this is our company mission').
There are reasons for not bringing politics into workplace other than "I support status quo". Such as wanting to get some work done, or being tired of endlessly debating the same things over and over again. (Or not wanting to get fired if it turns out that your opinion is somehow different from the majority, even if it does not support the status quo. There are more than two possible opinions.)
By similar logic, if you are not arguing about politics 24 hours a day, you spend the rest of your time defending status quo. Would you agree that this is a fair description of the moments you don't spend talking politics?
Is it, though? Because I see tremendous amount of virtue signalling in today's corporations, including Bay Area ones. How many social media woke campaigns? How many TV ads?
What's truly radical (and beneficial) today is what Coinbase is doing. And yes, Coinbase CEO is enacting a political approach (leave politics for your spare time), so employees are not compelled to do it by mob mentality.
I strongly disagree with this statement. A corporation (despite our current legal definition in the US) is not a person, and therefore shouldn't take sides in political matters, nor should it's representatives make overt political statements as though the company is a monolith. Companies are made up of people, and as individuals on their personal time and without conveying themselves as representatives of the company, should be able to to engage in politics.
If Silicon Valley executives are now going to be the arbiters of all that is good, we are in for a load of trouble. At best it's cringeworthy, at worst it's a load of limousine liberals wagging their fingers at the rest of us from their ivory towers.
"not participating in politics" is impossible, like another person in the thread stated[0], so simply not taking a side is taking a side, such as when deciding if your employees must wear a mask during work or if they can choose not to.
Companies not choosing to participate in politics is not, as some urge, de facto support of the status quo. It’s quite possible that e.g. Twitter taking a stand on some issue actually sets things back, by creating a stronger opposition.