Leaving WordPress (.org or WPF, still unsure which one)
megabyterose.com
megabyterose.com
In the wordpress.org login form you now have to check a box saying “I am not affiliated with WP Engine in any way, financially or otherwise.” There are instances of people unable to login unless they choose to lie https://wordpress.org/support/topic/cant-log-in-to-org-due-t...
Note that wordpress.org was supposed to be the community site, not the for-profit one
> I am unable to check that box. I’ve previously purchased services from them. I also know people who work there.
Doesn't "affiliated" imply a formal relationship/connection between two entities, rather than just being a subscriber/buyer of something? Like you'd need to have some sort of influence or stake in the other entity for it to be a "affiliation".
For example, I wouldn't say I'm "financially affiliated" with GitHub/Microsoft just because I've paid for the Pro plan in the past.
But maybe the word is used differently in this specific context.
But, the person you linked to don't seem to be discussing the whole thing in good faith, as exemplified with this comment:
> "ANY way means that if I visit the WPE website I cannot click that checkbox. That's not a speculation"
I'm pretty sure that no legal interpretation of that checkbox label would reach the same conclusion (but, I'm not a lawyer, and yadda yadda), and it is quite literally speculation unless that person actually investigated if it's true, which don't seem to have done.
So again, not disagreeing or agreeing with anything here, but there is a lot of baseless arguing back-and-forth between everyone, and people (including Matt) seem to more willing to stir the pot some more, rather than finding something that moves to solve the situation.
If no legal interpretation of that checkbox would reach that same conclusion, Matt would have just said that, rather than banning the questioner and leaving the question unanswered except for 'contact a lawyer'.
The best way to "solve" the situation would be Matt acknowledging he was in the wrong to harm innocent people, and simply remove the unnecessary checkbox. The only reason it exists is his personal crusade against WPEngine and anyone and anything associated with it "in any way".
it says "financially or otherwise". I'd say the wise thing to do is to delete your account if you have one (I just deleted mine). The only people who are going to benefit from this farce are the lawyers, users are irrelevant right now.
Edit: when I say "users are irrelevant" I mean specifically the .org ones. At least some of the .com ones are paying customers so I think that's a different situation.
So to be 100% clear, it says this (verbatim):
> I am not affiliated with WP Engine in any way, financially or otherwise.
So "affiliated" is used for "any way", "financially" and "otherwise". Not "financially affiliated, or otherwise".
It seems pretty clear to me that it's for people that have an actual two-way relationship somehow to WP Engine, not customers, as you don't say you're "affiliated" with someone just because you're a user/customer.
Such an general affiliation could include having a friend who works at WPEngine, being a customer of WPEngine, and many other possibilities.
Several wordpress community members have asked for clarity here, and been banned for asking. Matt refuses to provide clarity, apparently because he prefers people to be afraid of having any connection at all to WPEngine.
That is why the article mentions a lawyer: Matt's response to questions is that the questioners should hire a lawyer to figure out what Matt's own wording means. That sounds like a bad faith response to me.
> you don't say you're "affiliated" with someone just because you're a user/customer
A customer affiliation is included in "affiliated in any way", and constitutes a financial affiliation, too. If Matt didn't want people to interpret the checkbox in this way, he should have picked more specific wording and/or answered questions with something better than 'hire a lawyer'.
Isn't the general rule that uncertainty in a contract is construed against the drafter? If you're deliberately refusing to clarify your own contract that seems like it could jeopardize the ability to enforce it at all.
I don't agree/disagree with it, but I don't read Matt's motivation as "I want more money" but more like "I want to defend this thing I've built that I feel like is being abused right now", even if I personally might not be able to see it in that light, or agree with the approach Matt is taking.
The argument that WP Engine is trying to mislead people is weak at best. We're seriously saying that talking about WordPress hosting was misleading? To whom? What about every other host that does this?
Also considering the current deliberately misleading state of .com/.org/Automattic/Matt/the foundation etc, I really think they could do a lot to lead by example there before going this unnecessarily nuclear to others. I don't believe it because the reaction is totally out of line with the issue.
Trying to see things from Matts perspective, it totally makes sense to go nuclear in order to defend what you see as your baby being under attack from a hostile for-profit entity.
I don't necessarily agree that the situation actually is "WP Engine is attacking Wordpress", but clearly Matt sees it like that, no matter if it's real or not, and it does make his actions understandable, even if I disagree with them, or how weak the argument is.
Trying to see things from the perspective of the wordpress community, and not just 1 dude: wordpress is not his baby, it is the community's baby, and he is the hostile for-profit entity attacking it with things like this checkbox, cutting off over a million community members from security updates, etc.
tl;dr: nobody is saying Matt doesn't think he's always in the right (obviously he does), we're just pointing out that he isn't, and his actions hurt wordpress and the community.
> Matt seems convinced (for better or worse) that WP Engine tried to mislead Wordpress users, and tried to damage Wordpress in other ways.
He's not.
> The analogy I made is they got Al Capone for taxes,” Mullenweg says. [...] Mullenweg argues one of the reasons for its success is the use of “WordPress” across its site. “That’s why we’re using that legal avenue to really, yeah, pressure them. That’s true: we are pressuring them.”
He wants WP Engine to pay/contribute (while requiring audits to ensure they're properly contributing), and is just using trademark claims as the instrument to force them to pay up.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/4/24262232/matt-mullenweg-w...
Seems like the right choice if not for now in the future, at this rate the petty childish behavior is looking to escalate further.
Ironically, it's the second Google hit for "wpengine." Appears to be self written, but nonetheless, describes WP Engine as having "played an integral role in supporting the WordPress project." I would think at this point both sides would have wanted it removed.
Should raise some serious worries about how 'independent' the foundation and open source project are compared to Automattic and WordPress.com. Wouldn't be surprised if people tried to fork the project at this rate.
> [ ] I am not affiliated with WP Engine in any way, financially or otherwise.
From the article I expected a link to very long terms, but this feels very on-brand for the pettiness of the whole drama so far.
Except for banks, business are not allowed to discriminate customers and refuse to serve equally everyone. Imagine like saying you are not allowed to take gas in a shell gas station if you are an employee of Exxon or something like that...
Edit: some of that team seem sponsored so maybe I am wrong?
I dunno, 5 hours per week without pay sounds like volunteering to me, not like a "real job".
But technically it is volunteering.
Why would you need to do that? Just use your own judgment, what's the downside of getting this one wrong?
https://x.com/JavierCasares/status/1843963074904227945
Read that whole thread from the earlier tweets too. People are getting banned from the Slack channel for asking what the checkbox means. This isn't just drama from OP.
From my view, WordPress usage was definitely already in decline, but its status as an entrenched juggernaut kept it relevant. Perhaps bringing attention to everyone that quietly used WordPress means those people will start to look for alternatives?
For devs who make a living off hosting/plugins/themes they might keep an eye on things but why move if the money is still coming in?
For users, I doubt much of them will ever know or care -- unless you're on WP engine.
Wordpress is still the most widely available, cheapest and easiest (for non-tech user) to customise software to make a website with.
What would change that, and make me more likely to abandon Wordpress (taking the money my business spends in that ecosystem with it), is if things start to happen, such as a login checkbox with potential legal implications, that gets in my way of using the thing that Wordpress wants me to use.
Whether or not that sentiment is shared across a larger subset of wordpress users I do not know, but I have a pretty strong spidey sense that this crusade is burning down the countryside it’s supposedly trying to save.
Enshittification comes for everything, eventually.