Hacker News Reader

Comment by diggan | Hacker News Reader

From that thread:

> 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.

View on HN

> For example, I wouldn't say I'm "financially affiliated" with GitHub/Microsoft

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.

> it says "financially or otherwise".

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.

"I am not affiliated in any way, financially or otherwise" expands to "I am not affiliated in any way financially or affiliated in any way otherwise [than financially].

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'.

> Matt's response to questions is that the questioners should hire a lawyer to figure out what Matt's own wording means.

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.

Don't ask what that checkbox means. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41788704

I mentioned it in another comment but worth repeating, I have no bones in this fight, so I don't really care either way and I disagree with the approach Matt is taking regardless.

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.

I'm pretty sure, given Matt's history of acting erratically and in a way that harms innocent people, that the questions asked were in good faith.

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".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com