5 ms·

Yes, they did use Matt's Hacker News comments against him. (p24) The more relevant outcome of WPEngine getting the injuction is in Section F (p40), which inclu

Yes, they did use Matt's Hacker News comments against him. (p24) The more relevant outcome of WPEngine getting the injuction is in Section F (p40), which includes removing that WordPress login checkbox.

talldayo 2y ago
I feel like photomatt's comments are going to be enshrined in the same way the Dropbox one was. He talked up such a huge game but everyone knew he was in the wrong - we need to intercept cocky executives before they incriminate themselves in media res.
- kbarmettler 2y ago
  I agree if we're talking from the perspective of his lawyers. From the wordpress community perspective, I think we benefited from Matt's extraordinary outspokenness here. It made all the bad acts very easy to bullet point in this injunction!
  - barthvr 2y ago
    Maybe he'll have to step back like Linus had a few years ago. And maybe give the wp.org domain ownership to the Foundation, making WP a bit more reliable and resilient to one's actions.
    - nchmy 2y ago
      That wouldn't change anything - he IS the foundation.
- speckx 2y ago
  Curious as to what was the Dropbox comment? Can you please share or link? Thanks!
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Congrats, you're one of today's lucky 10000: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 Also worth reading the poster's follow-up years later and the ensuing discussion. Graeme's observation about the significance of the comment is super important: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661824
    - RainyDayTmrw 2y ago
      And in case anyone needs it, the 10,000 number is referencing this: https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
    - dang 2y ago
      Time for another episode of "The Case for 9224" (not criticizing you! it's just my hobby, apparently) That comment has gotten a bum rap over the years. The commenter was trying to be helpful with Dropbox's YC application (that's what "app" meant on HN in 2007). Back then, file synchronization was widely thought to be a solution-in-search-of-a-problem. I've been trying for years to get people to understand this (starting at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229275, then https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20brandonm&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), even though I know you can't argue with the internet. The comment only became infamous years later [1, 2], after Dropbox was clearly a success—so this is a case of hindsight. If people would only read all three comments, instead of stopping at the first, they'd see that the exchange was pleasant and successful [3]. But a meme is more fun. It didn't exist, so it had to be invented! [4] Compare that with the other infamous-HN-comment-from-2007, "did you win the Putnam" [5], which got pilloried in real time. No hindsight fallacy there! If the hivemind had empathy (which alas it does not), people would stop to consider how they'd feel about getting publicly mocked over decades for something they posted with good intentions at age 22 [6]. Alas, this is how the internet works—not much we can do about it. It's amazing, though, what a good sport BrandonM has been about it all this time. That part of the story is actually real, so we should celebrate that too. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6138488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6138488 (August 2013, i.e. 6 years later) seems to be the earliest reference on HN itself. [2] April 5, 2007: "Show HN, Dropbox" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625306 (Oct 2013) [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9272 from Drew, and then https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9479 [4] https://www.whitman.edu/VSA/trois.imposteurs.html https://www.whitman.edu/VSA/trois.imposteurs.html [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079, but don't miss the witty and graceful concession (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35350) [6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661824
- fabianhjr 2y ago
  > we need to intercept cocky executives before they incriminate themselves in media res. Please don't, just let them. Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
  - browningstreet 2y ago
    There’s a community of users to think about… I think Matt needs to be replaced, and while the “what” may be arguable, he loses hard on the “how”.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      These people care little of the potential consequences, they operate from a particular mental model in that regard [1]. The harm will be done. When they swan dive from a reputational and legal perspective, step back and the problem solves itself. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371295 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371295
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- Brian_K_White 2y ago
  Why intercept them? I don't want douchebags like that to succeed in their douchebaggery. I want them to mouth off.
unsnap_biceps 2y ago
Matt hasn't commented here in 57 days. I wonder what changed from, paraphrased, my lawyer okayed this communication[1] and now. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726961
- legitster 2y ago
  https://ma.tt/2024/10/first-amendment/ https://ma.tt/2024/10/first-amendment/ The lawyer thing was hilarious. Someone actually claiming to be his lawyer was on the HN threads and anytime he was asked a question the response was a version of "Oh, I hadn't heard about this. I can't answer that."
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - minimaxir 2y ago
    > After this post, I will refrain from personally commenting on the WP Engine case until a judge rules on the injunction. Well, a judge did indeed rule on the injuction. He just retweeted this tweet about the case: https://x.com/brian_essig/status/1866640985842692452 https://x.com/brian_essig/status/1866640985842692452 > This is actually bullshit. Agree with him or not, the court is forcing an open source maintainer into providing services to a user. What’s next, a company finds a bug and a court orders a maintainer to fix it?
    - smsm42 2y ago
      That's not an accurate description. An accurate description is that the court is ordering an open source maintainer to stop treating one particular user in a hostile and exclusionary manner. Now, you can object to that too, but there's a serious difference. It's like fixing a bug, but intentionally excluding some particular user from getting the bug fix - it's not the same as fixing a bug. Fixing a bug anew requires additional work, and forcing somebody in un-contracted work is usually hard. Allowing a user to access the bug fix everybody else can access requires just stopping being a jerk, no surprise the court is much more willing to grant such kind of relief.
Havoc 2y ago
Pretty sure everyone except Matt saw that one coming

talldayo 2y ago

I feel like photomatt's comments are going to be enshrined in the same way the Dropbox one was. He talked up such a huge game but everyone knew he was in the wrong - we need to intercept cocky executives before they incriminate themselves in media res.

kbarmettler 2y ago
I agree if we're talking from the perspective of his lawyers. From the wordpress community perspective, I think we benefited from Matt's extraordinary outspokenness here. It made all the bad acts very easy to bullet point in this injunction!
- barthvr 2y ago
  Maybe he'll have to step back like Linus had a few years ago. And maybe give the wp.org domain ownership to the Foundation, making WP a bit more reliable and resilient to one's actions.
  - nchmy 2y ago
    That wouldn't change anything - he IS the foundation.
speckx 2y ago
Curious as to what was the Dropbox comment? Can you please share or link? Thanks!
- lolinder 2y ago
  Congrats, you're one of today's lucky 10000: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 Also worth reading the poster's follow-up years later and the ensuing discussion. Graeme's observation about the significance of the comment is super important: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661824
  - RainyDayTmrw 2y ago
    And in case anyone needs it, the 10,000 number is referencing this: https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
  - dang 2y ago
    Time for another episode of "The Case for 9224" (not criticizing you! it's just my hobby, apparently) That comment has gotten a bum rap over the years. The commenter was trying to be helpful with Dropbox's YC application (that's what "app" meant on HN in 2007). Back then, file synchronization was widely thought to be a solution-in-search-of-a-problem. I've been trying for years to get people to understand this (starting at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229275, then https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20brandonm&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), even though I know you can't argue with the internet. The comment only became infamous years later [1, 2], after Dropbox was clearly a success—so this is a case of hindsight. If people would only read all three comments, instead of stopping at the first, they'd see that the exchange was pleasant and successful [3]. But a meme is more fun. It didn't exist, so it had to be invented! [4] Compare that with the other infamous-HN-comment-from-2007, "did you win the Putnam" [5], which got pilloried in real time. No hindsight fallacy there! If the hivemind had empathy (which alas it does not), people would stop to consider how they'd feel about getting publicly mocked over decades for something they posted with good intentions at age 22 [6]. Alas, this is how the internet works—not much we can do about it. It's amazing, though, what a good sport BrandonM has been about it all this time. That part of the story is actually real, so we should celebrate that too. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6138488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6138488 (August 2013, i.e. 6 years later) seems to be the earliest reference on HN itself. [2] April 5, 2007: "Show HN, Dropbox" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625306 (Oct 2013) [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9272 from Drew, and then https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9479 [4] https://www.whitman.edu/VSA/trois.imposteurs.html https://www.whitman.edu/VSA/trois.imposteurs.html [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079, but don't miss the witty and graceful concession (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35350) [6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661824
fabianhjr 2y ago
> we need to intercept cocky executives before they incriminate themselves in media res. Please don't, just let them. Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
- browningstreet 2y ago
  There’s a community of users to think about… I think Matt needs to be replaced, and while the “what” may be arguable, he loses hard on the “how”.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    These people care little of the potential consequences, they operate from a particular mental model in that regard [1]. The harm will be done. When they swan dive from a reputational and legal perspective, step back and the problem solves itself. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371295 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371295
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
Brian_K_White 2y ago
Why intercept them? I don't want douchebags like that to succeed in their douchebaggery. I want them to mouth off.

unsnap_biceps 2y ago

Matt hasn't commented here in 57 days. I wonder what changed from, paraphrased, my lawyer okayed this communication[1] and now. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726961

legitster 2y ago
https://ma.tt/2024/10/first-amendment/ https://ma.tt/2024/10/first-amendment/ The lawyer thing was hilarious. Someone actually claiming to be his lawyer was on the HN threads and anytime he was asked a question the response was a version of "Oh, I hadn't heard about this. I can't answer that."
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- minimaxir 2y ago
  > After this post, I will refrain from personally commenting on the WP Engine case until a judge rules on the injunction. Well, a judge did indeed rule on the injuction. He just retweeted this tweet about the case: https://x.com/brian_essig/status/1866640985842692452 https://x.com/brian_essig/status/1866640985842692452 > This is actually bullshit. Agree with him or not, the court is forcing an open source maintainer into providing services to a user. What’s next, a company finds a bug and a court orders a maintainer to fix it?
  - smsm42 2y ago
    That's not an accurate description. An accurate description is that the court is ordering an open source maintainer to stop treating one particular user in a hostile and exclusionary manner. Now, you can object to that too, but there's a serious difference. It's like fixing a bug, but intentionally excluding some particular user from getting the bug fix - it's not the same as fixing a bug. Fixing a bug anew requires additional work, and forcing somebody in un-contracted work is usually hard. Allowing a user to access the bug fix everybody else can access requires just stopping being a jerk, no surprise the court is much more willing to grant such kind of relief.

Havoc 2y ago

Pretty sure everyone except Matt saw that one coming