[braingenious]

I’m not sure how this is unclear. If Coinbase wrote a paragraph about their practices and that paragraph is “proof” of their practices, why wouldn’t another party writing a paragraph constitute “proof” of their position?

The topic of this sentence is “the definition of proof.”

[TameAntelope]

Eliminate the word “proof” from your vocabulary.

All we have here is evidence, which is fundamentally different.

[braingenious]

Okay, there are words saying that “maybe Coinbase’s work with ICE is more sinister than they divulged.”

Those are words online! That’s evidence! You cannot refute that someone wrote those words. I know that those are words online because I wrote them! Now you have evidence and testimony.

The funny part about all this is that nobody is claiming that they know that Coinbase is lying about this contract. It’s all been entirely hypothetical (hence the word “maybe.”)

What evidence or proof have you seen that there exists no possibility of a corporation lying about their relationship with a controversial government agency?

[TameAntelope]

Rational thinkers don't consider beliefs just because they haven't conclusively been "disproven".

[braingenious]

Rational thinkers accept corporate press releases as canonical truth, got it. Even mildly considering the possibility of being lied to is a sign of poor coognitive function. This is a very enlightened view of the world, I hope one day to reach this level of intellect.