“
We’ve heard concerns from some smaller services that the new rules will be too burdensome for them. Some of them believe they don’t have the resources to dedicate to assessing risk on their platforms, and to making sure they have measures in place to help them comply with the rules. As a result, some smaller services feel they might need to shut down completely.
So, we wanted to reassure those smaller services that this is unlikely to be the case“
“If organisations have carried out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and determined, with good reason, that the risks they face are low, they will only be expected to have basic but important measures to remove illegal content when they become aware of it. These include:
easy-to-find, understandable terms and conditions;
a complaints tool that allows users to report illegal or harmful material when they see it, backed up by a process to deal with those complaints;
the ability to review content and take it down quickly if they have reason to believe it is illegal; and
a specific individual responsible for compliance, who we can contact if we need to.”
The opposite is true. The new law makes it considerably more risky for large companies because the law is specifically designed to hold them to account for conduct on their platforms. The (perceived) risk for small websites is unintended and the requirements are very achievable for small websites. The law is intended for and will be used to eviscerate Facebook etc. for their wrongs. We are far more likely to see Facebook etc. leave the UK market than we are see any small websites suffer.
A small website operator can keep child pornography off their platform with ease. Facebook have a mountain to climb — regardless of their resources.
"According to Baymard Institute, 70.19% of online shopping carts are abandoned. Think about that. For every 100 potential customers, 70 of them will leave without purchasing. How much would your revenues increase if you were capturing those sales instead of losing them?"
Honey provides value to merchants because it reduces cart abandonment: it's easy for Honey to argue that without Honey these sales would not have completed and therefore Honey deserves the commission on the sale.
Even in cases where Honey didn't find a discount, Honey can argue that by searching for coupons on behalf of the user the user gains confidence that the price they're paying is the best price and that's why they complete their purchase.
I don't understand this decision. Running a website as an individual is a liability risk for all sorts of reasons for which there are simple (and cheap) mitigations. Even if you believe this legislation is a risk, there are options other than shutting down. The overreaction here is no different than when GDPR came in, and we all collectively lost our minds and started shutting things down and then discovered there was zero consequence for mom-and-pop websites. I assume this isn't a genuine post and is actually an attempt at some sort of protest, with no intention of actually shutting down the websites. Or, more likely, they're just old and tired and ready to move on from this period of their life, running these websites.
A contract is only worth as much as you’re willing to enforce it. If you’re not willing to enforce your contract, the clauses don’t matter.
If you’re stuck in the bureaucracy: escape it. Their rules aren’t serving you so why obey them? Escalate to their legal department, send a certified letter about your impending legal action against them. Enforce your contract.
And Automattic's control over WordPress is part of their "marketing" budget. Let's not forget how valuable the exclusive commercial license for the WordPress trademark is to Automattic, their ability to use the WordPress.com domain has huge commercial value to them. I have no doubt that WP Engine would pay tens of millions of dollars per year for the exclusive commercial license to the WordPress trademark which is tens of millions that could be funnelled to the WordPress Foundation, which is tens of millions more than Automattic spend. Ask yourself how Matt justifies Automattic spending millions of dollars per year on hosting WordPress.org and millions of dollars on the 100+ staff Automattic have working on WordPress.org.
We can't pick and choose which contributions are valid and which aren't. WP Engine spend money on the development of WPGraphQL a free plugin, WP Engine spend money on the development of Advanced Custom Fields which they release for free for millions of WordPress sites to use... of course they're not doing that out of some altruistic moral crusade, of course it's a clear calculus about the benefit to their bottom line, but that doesn't change that they're contributing.
The "Five for the Future" contributions are specifically about contributing to WordPress Core, which is owned and controlled by Matt Mullenweg: you're playing into Matt's absurd narrative that the only valid contribution is one that is made to something under Matt's control.
I think WP Engine are Private Equity leeches, I have zero doubt about that, I wish that they were to contribute more but that's the deal with Open Source software, that's what we choose to allow by releasing Open Source software. The moral obligation we have when we use Open Source software is to respect the license, Matt had the choice about the license to release WordPress under, he made the choice for it to be GPL.
dhh is more eloquent and authoritative than I, read these if you need further convincing:
Matt seems to have missed that dhh called out his use of the WordPress trademark as the strategy to "get Al Capone" which Matt has admitted to multiple times.
"“The analogy I made is they got Al Capone for taxes,” Mullenweg says. “So, if a company was making half a billion dollars from WordPress and contributing back about $100,000 a year, yes, I would be trying to get them to contribute more.” WP Engine competes directly with the hosting services offered by Automattic and WordPress.com, and 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.”"
I enjoyed the part where he explains that he has to operate WordPress.org personally because the IRS wouldn’t allow a non-profit to operate a website with commercial value. He then talks about the structure of the WordPress Foundation, explaining that it has a for-profit subsidiary to run the WordCamps which generates around $5 million per year in revenue from commercial partners. Matt, you just shared a workaround that would work for WordPress.org that you’re already using for operating the WordCamps! He speaks with a calm and polite tone but has a complete lack of sincerity. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would at least pause to consider their contradictions.
Matt hasn’t made any claims that need a rebuttal. Matt’s claims are factually correct. The issue is that they’re immaterial. Matt has demanded that WPEngine pay 8% of their revenue to Matt’s company (Automattic). Matt has retroactively changed the terms of use of the WordPress trademark to create a violation by WPEngine. Matt has engineered the situation, we can’t separate the claims from the conduct because they’re one and the same.
Matt’s position is (ostensibly) based on his hard line views about the moral obligation to contribute created through the use of open-source. The trademark sideshow is based on Matt’s understanding that a moral argument isn’t going to convince a private equity backed company to spend money they don’t need to spend. Matt believes WPEngine has a moral obligation to contribute and the trademark licensing fee is the easiest tool he has to force action.
Matt is making a moral argument. WPEngine don’t care because they’re driven by money not morals.
Last month.
“ We’ve heard concerns from some smaller services that the new rules will be too burdensome for them. Some of them believe they don’t have the resources to dedicate to assessing risk on their platforms, and to making sure they have measures in place to help them comply with the rules. As a result, some smaller services feel they might need to shut down completely.
So, we wanted to reassure those smaller services that this is unlikely to be the case“
“If organisations have carried out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and determined, with good reason, that the risks they face are low, they will only be expected to have basic but important measures to remove illegal content when they become aware of it. These include:
easy-to-find, understandable terms and conditions; a complaints tool that allows users to report illegal or harmful material when they see it, backed up by a process to deal with those complaints; the ability to review content and take it down quickly if they have reason to believe it is illegal; and a specific individual responsible for compliance, who we can contact if we need to.”
Your turn. Where are these compliance costs?