Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 212 posts

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#21

Post by lolinder »

speckx wrote: post #12
talldayo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Curious as to what was the Dropbox comment? Can you please share or link? Thanks!

Congrats, you're one of today's lucky 10000:

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

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#22

Post by browningstreet »

fabianhjr wrote: post #15
talldayo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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”.

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#23

Post by [deleted] »

speckx wrote: post #12
talldayo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Curious as to what was the Dropbox comment? Can you please share or link? Thanks!

[deleted]

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#24

Post by toomuchtodo »

browningstreet wrote: post #22
fabianhjr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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”.

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

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#25

Post by aspenmayer »

jcranmer wrote: post #20
lolinder wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oof. This comment originally had an introduction attributing the summary to Claude and immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Now it's been edited to remove the attribution and it's resurrected (edit: gone again, so ignore me). Unintended perverse incentives...

Even without the attribution, it was still pretty clear to me that it was a chatbot-generated summary. No human who understands how the legal procedure works would introduce the summary in that way, as the court order is the preliminary injunction.

Even without the attribution, generated comments are against HN guidelines.

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#26

Post by blahlabs »

speckx wrote: post #12
talldayo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Curious as to what was the Dropbox comment? Can you please share or link? Thanks!

It would be this one, I'm sure.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#27

Post by aspenmayer »

lolinder wrote: post #13
tmsh wrote: post #5

[flagged]

Oof. This comment originally had an introduction attributing the summary to Claude and immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Now it's been edited to remove the attribution and it's resurrected (edit: gone again, so ignore me). Unintended perverse incentives...

I’ve begged dang to specifically say that generated comments are against HN guidelines in the guidelines themselves, but as it stands, it’s still against guidelines, but only communicated in comments. I warned about the perverse incentives as well. It’s a pretty subpar status quo.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42224783

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#29

Post by artistic_regard »

aspenmayer wrote: post #27
lolinder wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oof. This comment originally had an introduction attributing the summary to Claude and immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Now it's been edited to remove the attribution and it's resurrected (edit: gone again, so ignore me). Unintended perverse incentives...

I’ve begged dang to specifically say that generated comments are against HN guidelines in the guidelines themselves , but as it stands, it’s still against guidelines, but only communicated in comments. I warned about the perverse incentives as well. It’s a pretty subpar status quo. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42224783 https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[dead]

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#30

Post by unsnap_biceps »

minimaxir wrote: post #2

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.

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

Post reply on HN