Coinbase’s Philosophy on Account Removal and Content Moderation | by Coinbase | Feb, 2022

By Brian Armstrong

In the previous few years, it’s develop into more and more widespread for tech firms to censor prospects or shut their accounts for a spread of causes (e.g., misinformation). Fortunately, as a crypto enterprise we don’t face this concern as ceaselessly as a social community does, however we nonetheless have to set clear insurance policies round acceptable use of our merchandise. As our product suite grows, it’ll even embrace merchandise that host consumer generated content material like NFTs.

Our excessive degree philosophy is that, in a democratic society, the individuals and their elected officers ought to resolve what conduct is allowed and never allowed by setting legal guidelines. We predict it units a harmful precedent when tech firms, resembling Coinbase, or their executives begin making judgment calls on troublesome societal points, appearing as decide and jury. This method sounds easy in concept, however in apply it’s something however.

First, it may be very complicated to find out whether or not an exercise is authorized or unlawful. Legal guidelines range significantly throughout completely different nations, states, and areas. Some actions are authorized solely if in case you have a license. Some exercise is in a grey space. Some unjust legal guidelines go unenforced. Like most firms, we refer suspected criminality to the related authorities, however we will’t count on to obtain a well timed response or opinion again from them given the various calls for on their sources. Sadly, this places us, together with most firms, within the unlucky place of getting to make our personal determinations about what exercise is authorized or unlawful.

Second, even when some exercise is authorized, it could be one thing that’s deeply troubling to have on the platform. The world is affected by polarizing, uncomfortable, or obscene content material which will nonetheless be authorized. That is the place firms begin to train much more judgment on what they permit. However there may be nice hazard of falling down a slippery slope, having to render selections on each troublesome societal concern, the place you might be certain to upset somebody irrespective of the place you land. With out some sturdy principled based mostly method, these selections develop into arbitrary and capricious, opening the corporate to assault.

Lastly, each firm works with different firms which have their very own set of moderation and deplatforming insurance policies. For example, for any app to be listed within the Apple and Google App Shops, it must play by the principles of these two firms. Within the monetary companies world, we additionally work with banks and fee processors who’ve their very own acceptable use insurance policies. Only a few firms are utterly vertically built-in, with the posh of creating their very own selections in a vacuum.

So how ought to an organization implement an inexpensive method based mostly on the above constraints? We’ve give you our personal reply, and I need to share it right here so our prospects can perceive it, and in case it helps different firms.

First, it’s essential to distinguish our method based mostly on the kind of product. Coinbase has a broad product suite, however for moderation functions we group our merchandise as both infrastructure merchandise or public-facing merchandise when serious about how you can reasonable them. Infrastructure merchandise allow entry to fundamental monetary companies and are sometimes used privately by a single buyer, whereas public-facing merchandise typically host consumer generated content material and have social options seen to giant numbers of customers. Ben Thompson’s article on moderation in infrastructure illustrates how firms sometimes take a unique method for every of those merchandise.

For our infrastructure merchandise, we use rule of legislation as the inspiration of our method, as a result of we imagine that governments, not firms, ought to be deciding what’s allowed in society. We additionally imagine that everybody deserves entry to monetary companies, and a check of legality ought to be enough for these merchandise.

For our public-facing merchandise, we once more begin with rule of legislation as the inspiration. However assuming one thing is authorized in a sure jurisdiction, we additionally transcend this and reasonable content material that’s not protected speech underneath the First Modification. We’re not legally held to the First Modification as an organization, and the First Modification is a U.S. centered idea solely, however we’ve chosen to make use of it because the tenet of our content material moderation method as a result of it’s consistent with our values and helps guarantee we don’t fall down a slippery slope over time. The First Modification has tons of of years of case legislation constructed up, and gives an inexpensive framework to reasonable content material resembling incitement, combating phrases, libel, fraud, defamation and so on. David Sacks does an awesome job describing this method on this weblog publish.

Lastly, there are circumstances the place we need to work with exterior companions, such because the App Shops, and have to observe their moderation insurance policies to take action. Typically third get together fee suppliers have their very own insurance policies. For fee suppliers, we will merely disable performance associated to that associate if there’s a drawback with a particular consumer, whereas persevering with to supply Coinbase companies. However getting kicked out of the app shops wouldn’t assist anybody. So when working with companions, our method is to be free speech supporters, however not free speech martyrs, and to make lodging whether it is important for us to perform as a enterprise.

That is clearly a fancy concern, and hopefully the above method begins to indicate a path by it that doesn’t devolve into arbitrary and capricious determination making. To boil down the above method, we ask the next questions for our public-facing merchandise:

1. Is the content material unlawful in a jurisdiction by which we function?

A. If sure, then take away in that particular jurisdiction

2. Is the content material a free speech exception underneath the First Modification?

A. If sure, then take away globally

3. Has a crucial associate required us to take away the content material?

A. If sure, then take away the content material or disable the performance of that associate for the affected consumer

If the reply to any of those 3 questions is “Sure” we’ll take some moderation motion, resembling taking down content material and in extreme circumstances terminating the account.