5 ms·

> Of course, my company does have an affiliation with WP Engine. We use their service to host our website Does no one understand what "affiliation" means anymo

by diggan 2y ago

> Of course, my company does have an affiliation with WP Engine. We use their service to host our website Does no one understand what "affiliation" means anymore? Just because I bought something from Amazon doesn't mean I'm now affiliated with Amazon. "Affiliation" (usually) means something like a formal association, partnership, or close connection, not that you're just a customer. Besides that, dump Wordpress regardless, clearly they've lost focus from the actual users and Matt seems to be fighting some war others can't even see the reason for.

netsharc 2y ago
Isn't that what lawyers end up doing, arguing which definition of the word applies? And since (as far as I can surmise) elonmusk.php hasn't clarified what that word means in his checkbox, won't it be safer to be cautious?
- dylan604 2y ago
  This brings back the horrid memories of what the definition of is is type of sentences
  - netsharc 2y ago
    How about an argument for millions of dollars due to a missing punctuation mark: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/missing-oxford-comma-just-changed-course-court-case-180962551/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/missing-oxford-com...
chiefalchemist 2y ago
> "Matt seems to be fighting some war others can't even see the reason for." We see the reason. That reason is money. The lies / gaslighting aren't for OSS, etc. It's about MM's bottom line.
aksss 2y ago
This is why any decent contract or agreement has a definitions section. Ambiguity in legal docs should always be minimized.
- Terretta 2y ago
  On the contrary, it's why contracts use boilerplate. Boilerplate words have all been litigated. Boilerplate clauses are well understood. Affiliate, affiliated, affiliation, words like these are boilerplate, unless you go to the trouble of locally redefining.
  - aksss 2y ago
    Embrace the magic of “and”. Boilerplate is good but definitions are best, even with boilerplate words that have boilerplate definitions. Incorporating those definitions into the document at the time of execution benefits all parties. Again: minimize ambiguity, anticipate what will make dispute resolution easier. Source: have worked through a lot of contracts, license agreements, labor agreements, and disputes over the same.
loeber 2y ago
A lawyer would beg to differ.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  But only after you'd committed to paying his standard hourly rate for begging-to-differ services.
simlevesque 2y ago
When Matt was asked to clarify what he means by "affiliation", he said: "ask your lawyer" and "I can't answer that for you"
- OtomotO 2y ago
  If he can't answer such a question, he shouldn't get to ask.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    Agreed, and I think this isn't really about whether he personally knows legal jargon, but about whether he had a clear idea WTF he wanted before making brash demands and threats. (Or, much less charitably, the intentional use of vague language in bad faith.)
    - Roscius 2y ago
      contra proferentem - a rule in contract law that states any ambiguity in a contract should be interpreted against the party that drafted it
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If he can't answer such a question, he shouldn't get to ask No? If my employer asks me to clarify my employment agreement, I don't have an obligation to be their armchair counsel.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      That analogy is backwards: You'd be the one asking your employer to clarify the terms they chose and wrote themselves which they are trying to press upon you. It's totally reasonable to ask the party introducing "shall not associate with" into a contract exactly WTF "associating" is supposed to cover.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
dustywusty 2y ago
The language is intentionally vague, and leaves the determination on the person who has to check the box. I have a competing product and shouldn't get too far in the weeds on what I truly think here, but the predominant feeling across people that have to interact with this is that it's done on purpose. It's not so much that people don't understand what the word "affiliation" means, it's that you'd have to be completely certain that a lawyer, hired from what is clearly a litigious org, would have the same understanding.
- dylan604 2y ago
  This isn't a legal document from the federal government. There's no perjury risk. Just click the box and get what you need. What, is Matt paying for deep background checks on everyone that does check that box? It's one of the most ridiculous checkboxes on the interwebs
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Nobody said perjury. Violating contracts is actually illegal though, FYI.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      maybe it's just me that always has that "under penalty of perjury" sarcastically running in my inner voice whenever I see these types of ridiculous EULA type of things. Somebody should really force the issue to "have standing" to fight the ridiculousness. I'm shocked WP Engine hasn't already
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Companies are absolutely allowed to arbitrarily ban certain people or groups of people from using their services, and if you sign a contract attesting to you being allowed to use the service, you can absolutely be found guilty and/or liable of breach of contract.
    - 2y ago
yifanl 2y ago
I know what the words means to me, I don't know what it means to Matt, and his opinion seems to be the relevant one.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> "Affiliation" (usually) means something like a formal association, partnership, or close connection, not that you're just a customer In securities, yes. In general use, not necessarily.
- brailsafe 2y ago
  "Not necessarily" can apply to almost any use of language, but I feel like this kind of thing can commonly be interpreted as non-affiliated. In an analogous case, if you work for an organization that performs public elections, at least in my country, you can't be affiliated with a party, but your personal business (voting for them) isn't included. Being publicly connected with or being compensated by another entity would seem to me to present an arguable affiliation
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Being publicly connected with or being compensated by another entity would seem to me to present an arguable affiliation It looks like it's a legitimate legal issue [1][2]. TL; DR It may make sense to explicitly clarify when you're using the term 'affiliate' as it is defined in 17 CFR § 230.601 / Rule 144 [3] versus "affiliate, including but not limited to []," or whatever. [1] https://www.sackrosendin.com/blog/2017/03/landlord-loses-over-definition-of-affiliates/ https://www.sackrosendin.com/blog/2017/03/landlord-loses-ove... [2] https://casetext.com/case/iqbal-v-ziadeh-2 https://casetext.com/case/iqbal-v-ziadeh-2 [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=e78e8fda5d9bc78ce2bb85600b83350c&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:17:Chapter:II:Part:230:230.144 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&...
bawolff 2y ago
Regardless, its kind of like asking someone to declare they aren't a communist or other bullshit political tests. I would refuse out of principle.
FireBeyond 2y ago
The language is, as described, intentionally vague and people with varying degrees of “affiliation” have been hit by the consequences. Matt also refuses to provide any elaboration on intent and instead says “you should talk to a lawyer”. This has the chilling effect he is looking for. No-one is “talking to a lawyer” to create or use a Wordpress.org account. Anyone who has sniffed the same air as WPE knows the intent.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
velcrovan 2y ago
If you buy something from Amazon you've made a one-time exchange. If you use WP Engine, you have an ongoing agreement with them to provide and support a service on which your business depends. A reasonable and literate person could construe that to be an affiliation.
gamblor956 2y ago
The problem is that Matt/WordPress is not using the standard definition of affiliation. On social media, Matt suggested that being a customer or service provider to WP Engine was an "affiliation" for purposes of that checkbox.
n3storm 2y ago
What if I being a customer "help" this company translating a part of the software? I am more than a customer then? should or shouldn't suggest features? how charm may I interact with support so I can still be a customer and not something more? Can I wear T-shirts of this company?
jchw 2y ago
> Does no one understand what "affiliation" means anymore? I have neither a WordPress.com account (I mean, that I know of, anyway) nor an affiliation with WP Engine. However, can we back up for a minute? If a website is asking me to make an assertion that may have legal consequences, it should absolutely be spelling out the intention and meaning of the language it uses. If you ask me what "affiliation" means, I'll give you my best answer as to what I understand it means. If you ask me to sign a document that says I do or do not have affiliation with some entity, I will tell you to clarify what an affiliation is and refuse to sign without it.

by diggan 2y ago

netsharc 2y ago

Isn't that what lawyers end up doing, arguing which definition of the word applies? And since (as far as I can surmise) elonmusk.php hasn't clarified what that word means in his checkbox, won't it be safer to be cautious?

dylan604 2y ago
This brings back the horrid memories of what the definition of is is type of sentences
- netsharc 2y ago
  How about an argument for millions of dollars due to a missing punctuation mark: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/missing-oxford-comma-just-changed-course-court-case-180962551/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/missing-oxford-com...

chiefalchemist 2y ago

> "Matt seems to be fighting some war others can't even see the reason for." We see the reason. That reason is money. The lies / gaslighting aren't for OSS, etc. It's about MM's bottom line.

aksss 2y ago

This is why any decent contract or agreement has a definitions section. Ambiguity in legal docs should always be minimized.

Terretta 2y ago
On the contrary, it's why contracts use boilerplate. Boilerplate words have all been litigated. Boilerplate clauses are well understood. Affiliate, affiliated, affiliation, words like these are boilerplate, unless you go to the trouble of locally redefining.
- aksss 2y ago
  Embrace the magic of “and”. Boilerplate is good but definitions are best, even with boilerplate words that have boilerplate definitions. Incorporating those definitions into the document at the time of execution benefits all parties. Again: minimize ambiguity, anticipate what will make dispute resolution easier. Source: have worked through a lot of contracts, license agreements, labor agreements, and disputes over the same.

loeber 2y ago

A lawyer would beg to differ.

bell-cot 2y ago
But only after you'd committed to paying his standard hourly rate for begging-to-differ services.

simlevesque 2y ago

When Matt was asked to clarify what he means by "affiliation", he said: "ask your lawyer" and "I can't answer that for you"

OtomotO 2y ago
If he can't answer such a question, he shouldn't get to ask.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Agreed, and I think this isn't really about whether he personally knows legal jargon, but about whether he had a clear idea WTF he wanted before making brash demands and threats. (Or, much less charitably, the intentional use of vague language in bad faith.)
  - Roscius 2y ago
    contra proferentem - a rule in contract law that states any ambiguity in a contract should be interpreted against the party that drafted it
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > If he can't answer such a question, he shouldn't get to ask No? If my employer asks me to clarify my employment agreement, I don't have an obligation to be their armchair counsel.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    That analogy is backwards: You'd be the one asking your employer to clarify the terms they chose and wrote themselves which they are trying to press upon you. It's totally reasonable to ask the party introducing "shall not associate with" into a contract exactly WTF "associating" is supposed to cover.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago

dustywusty 2y ago

The language is intentionally vague, and leaves the determination on the person who has to check the box. I have a competing product and shouldn't get too far in the weeds on what I truly think here, but the predominant feeling across people that have to interact with this is that it's done on purpose. It's not so much that people don't understand what the word "affiliation" means, it's that you'd have to be completely certain that a lawyer, hired from what is clearly a litigious org, would have the same understanding.

dylan604 2y ago
This isn't a legal document from the federal government. There's no perjury risk. Just click the box and get what you need. What, is Matt paying for deep background checks on everyone that does check that box? It's one of the most ridiculous checkboxes on the interwebs
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Nobody said perjury. Violating contracts is actually illegal though, FYI.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    maybe it's just me that always has that "under penalty of perjury" sarcastically running in my inner voice whenever I see these types of ridiculous EULA type of things. Somebody should really force the issue to "have standing" to fight the ridiculousness. I'm shocked WP Engine hasn't already
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Companies are absolutely allowed to arbitrarily ban certain people or groups of people from using their services, and if you sign a contract attesting to you being allowed to use the service, you can absolutely be found guilty and/or liable of breach of contract.
  - 2y ago

yifanl 2y ago

I know what the words means to me, I don't know what it means to Matt, and his opinion seems to be the relevant one.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> "Affiliation" (usually) means something like a formal association, partnership, or close connection, not that you're just a customer In securities, yes. In general use, not necessarily.

brailsafe 2y ago
"Not necessarily" can apply to almost any use of language, but I feel like this kind of thing can commonly be interpreted as non-affiliated. In an analogous case, if you work for an organization that performs public elections, at least in my country, you can't be affiliated with a party, but your personal business (voting for them) isn't included. Being publicly connected with or being compensated by another entity would seem to me to present an arguable affiliation
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Being publicly connected with or being compensated by another entity would seem to me to present an arguable affiliation It looks like it's a legitimate legal issue [1][2]. TL; DR It may make sense to explicitly clarify when you're using the term 'affiliate' as it is defined in 17 CFR § 230.601 / Rule 144 [3] versus "affiliate, including but not limited to []," or whatever. [1] https://www.sackrosendin.com/blog/2017/03/landlord-loses-over-definition-of-affiliates/ https://www.sackrosendin.com/blog/2017/03/landlord-loses-ove... [2] https://casetext.com/case/iqbal-v-ziadeh-2 https://casetext.com/case/iqbal-v-ziadeh-2 [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=e78e8fda5d9bc78ce2bb85600b83350c&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:17:Chapter:II:Part:230:230.144 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&...

bawolff 2y ago

Regardless, its kind of like asking someone to declare they aren't a communist or other bullshit political tests. I would refuse out of principle.

FireBeyond 2y ago

The language is, as described, intentionally vague and people with varying degrees of “affiliation” have been hit by the consequences. Matt also refuses to provide any elaboration on intent and instead says “you should talk to a lawyer”. This has the chilling effect he is looking for. No-one is “talking to a lawyer” to create or use a Wordpress.org account. Anyone who has sniffed the same air as WPE knows the intent.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

velcrovan 2y ago

If you buy something from Amazon you've made a one-time exchange. If you use WP Engine, you have an ongoing agreement with them to provide and support a service on which your business depends. A reasonable and literate person could construe that to be an affiliation.

gamblor956 2y ago

The problem is that Matt/WordPress is not using the standard definition of affiliation. On social media, Matt suggested that being a customer or service provider to WP Engine was an "affiliation" for purposes of that checkbox.

n3storm 2y ago

What if I being a customer "help" this company translating a part of the software? I am more than a customer then? should or shouldn't suggest features? how charm may I interact with support so I can still be a customer and not something more? Can I wear T-shirts of this company?

jchw 2y ago

> Does no one understand what "affiliation" means anymore? I have neither a WordPress.com account (I mean, that I know of, anyway) nor an affiliation with WP Engine. However, can we back up for a minute? If a website is asking me to make an assertion that may have legal consequences, it should absolutely be spelling out the intention and meaning of the language it uses. If you ask me what "affiliation" means, I'll give you my best answer as to what I understand it means. If you ask me to sign a document that says I do or do not have affiliation with some entity, I will tell you to clarify what an affiliation is and refuse to sign without it.