[glenstein]

>However, my question is this: has WPE given a factual rebuttal to Matt's claims?

I mean... The article talks about this extensively. And the article is my first exposure to the issue but presumably it's not the first place where these points have been presented. The authority or obligation to give back isn't a legal one, the authority to demand 8% raises all kinds of conflict of interest issues and appears dubious if not outright illegal, the global message posted to admin dashboards was an abuse of power, and the banning from using plugins doesn't even pretend to have a legitimate pretense.

Apparently part of the backstory here is there's a dizzying context, and there might be some subjectivity involved in surfacing these as the pertinent issues, but I wasn't left with the impression that the ball is in WPE's court to explain any kind of smoking gun that hasn't been accounted for by the discussion in the article.

[timeon]

> The article talks about this extensively.

The article is trying to manufacture consent with vague authority: "Most reasonable and knowledgeable people seem to share this opinion." While it is someone who is not impartial. He claimed that he worked in WPE before and than 'extensively' writes why it shouldn't matter - without telling anything.

I'm not saying that what 'Matt' did is OK. Seems to me no party here is in right. But that is not my point. My point is that these kind of articles - especially lengthy vague ones - are just increasing the drama.

[glenstein]

I understand that part of hn policy is that comment through should be getting more nuanced over time, but this seems like a bunch of zoomed out fuzziness that barely touches on any details.

The author makes all kinds of specific arguments that don't have anything to do with consensus, and the structure of the arguments is grounded on the inherent rightness or wrongness of interpretation of various rules, the existence are non-existent of copyright, the disproportionate and escalatory choices Matt has made, a whole host of specific arguments that don't have anything to do with where the consensus falls.

They do mention that Matt has appeared to have turned many in the community against him, but the arguments are pretty freestanding even if you want to set that aside, and there's also another interpretation other than manufacturing consent which is simply that it's a legitimate observation about what's really happening.

I can't say for sure, but there's so much more going on here that's more specific to the issue of right and wrong within zooming out and saying "gosh this sure is a lot of drama". I think if that's the level at what you're engaging in the conversation it's just making everything fuzzier.