They’re Trying to Destroy the Foundation, All of .Org, Demanding... ![rw-book-cover](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1998201848008679424/OGHs2IoF.png) 🔗 **Source:** [They’re Trying to Destroy the Foundation, All of .Org, Demanding...](https://twitter.com/trentlapinski/status/2111163275769442478/?rw_tt_thread=True) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [wp-engine-litigation, wordpress-governance, automattic, wordpress-foundation, social-media-thread] > author: Matt Mullenweg > source: X (formerly Twitter) > reference: https://twitter.com/trentlapinski/status/2111163275769442478 > date created: 2026-10-17 20:20 > > <!-- deep-read: light-touch --> > > > [!info] Generated analysis — not the author's words. Sections below are machine-written > > from the captured source. Only text inside `> [!quote]` blocks is verbatim from the author. > > Do not quote or attribute any other line to the named author. > > # 🏷️ Title: They’re trying to destroy the Foundation, all of .org, demanding billions in damages > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 📝 Summary - **What it is.** A captured X thread from 2026-10-16 with three layers, numbered here by blank-line splits (¶1 to ¶12). ¶1 to ¶2 are a post attributed by Reader to Matt Mullenweg about the WP Engine case and the WordPress Foundation. ¶3 to ¶6 are a quote post by Justin Ferriman (the capture's links name the quoting account and the post time, 2026-10-16 2:25 PM). ¶7 to ¶12 are a long reply to it. The reply's author is not named in its text; the capture's source URL points at the account `trentlapinski`, so that is the likeliest author and is unconfirmed. - **The claims.** The first post says "they" are trying to destroy the Foundation and `.org`, demanding billions in damages, and that a timeline in which they win is not one readers would want. The quote post predicts that if Automattic loses, the poster expects Mullenweg to "take his ball and go home". The reply agrees with the first post's concern, then argues the case is unlikely to go Automattic's way and says that 12 to 13 years ago a group including Andrew Nacin proposed a more structured foundation that was rejected. - **What it does not establish.** The thread cites no filing. The "billions in damages" figure differs from the "hundreds of millions of dollars" that The Repository's 2026-10-16 report quotes from Automattic's own motion (a separate source, not part of this capture). The 12-to-13-year-old foundation proposal and the prediction that Automattic will lose are the reply author's account and opinion. - **Bottom line.** A short, heated exchange on a pending case. It records positions and one specific historical claim, none of them sourced. ## 📖 Main content - **¶1 to ¶2, the first post.** Says the other side is trying to destroy the Foundation and all of `.org`, demanding billions in damages, and explains why the poster "gets worked up." The post names an account `@silverlake_news` as the party driving it. - **¶3 to ¶6, the quote post.** A prediction about how Mullenweg would react to losing the case: "100% going to take his ball and go home," and "he always makes sure he gets the last word." The text frames this as a speculation ("Could be wild times"). - **¶7 to ¶12, the reply.** Agrees it isn't a world the author wants, but says the other side was "starting trouble" first, that the trademark licensing terms were not realistic, and that Mullenweg's response made the damages worse. Predicts a loss on the facts, and says a 12-to-13-year-old proposal for a more structured foundation was rejected without real consideration. ## 📚 References Five links are in the capture: the `@silverlake_news` account, Justin Ferriman's account (twice), and the quote post's status page with its timestamp. The thread links no court filing, news report or document for any claim in it. A related source in the vault: The Repository's report on the 2026-10-16 extension ruling, which quotes the damages claim as "hundreds of millions of dollars" from Automattic's motion. ## ✅ Action items - **Anyone using this thread as a source.** Check the damages figure and the case status against the docket or a primary report before repeating it. - **DevRel, OSPO, Community, The WPOCC.** No direct action from this source. ## ❓ Questions - Where does the "billions" figure come from, given that the quoted motion says "hundreds of millions"? - Which proposal from 12 to 13 years ago does the reply mean, and is there a record of it? - Is the reply's author the account in the capture's source URL? ## ✅ Logical validity #### Strong reasoning - The reply separates two questions the first post blends: whether the other side acted improperly, and whether the response to it was effective. #### Fallacies - **Appeal to consequence (¶2).** "The timeline where they win is not a world you’ll want to live in" argues from how bad an outcome would be, not from the merits of the claims. Fix: state which claims, if upheld, produce which harm. - **Unsupported prediction (¶4, ¶10, ¶12).** Both the quote post and the reply forecast the case's outcome with high confidence and cite no filing. Fix: link the ruling or motion the forecast rests on. - **Unsourced figure (¶1).** "Billions in damages" conflicts with a figure from a motion quoted elsewhere. #### Tone of voice Alarmed and personal in ¶1 to ¶2, speculative in ¶3 to ¶6, aggrieved and regretful in ¶7 to ¶12. ## 🎯 Conclusion A thread worth keeping as a record of how people framed the stakes on 2026-10-16, and not as evidence about the case. Its one checkable claim, the damages figure, conflicts with another source. Two other Reader captures of the same thread carry the same opening posts with different replies, including one that raises concern about the wording of ¶2. Those are not analyzed here. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — They’re trying to destroy the Foundation, all of .org, demanding billions in damages > Density: light-touch note on a short social thread; three literature atoms, no permanent candidates. ### 📚 Literature Split Pad #### [H1] The opening post frames the case as an attack on the Foundation > [!quote] [¶1] > They’re trying to destroy the Foundation, all of .org, demanding billions in damages. **Context & use**: - ¶1 of the capture. The figure is unsourced and differs from the "hundreds of millions of dollars" quoted from Automattic's motion in a separate report. **Tags**: #xref <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [H2] The reply predicts a loss and cites no filing > [!quote] [¶10] > I don’t think you’re going to win this case because the laws you broke aren’t in your favor. **Context & use**: - ¶10. A forecast and a legal conclusion with no linked ruling or motion. **Tags**: #xref <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [H3] A rejected structure proposal is offered as the root cause > [!quote] [¶11] > Had we been able to achieve even a fraction of what was intended the Foundation wouldn’t be at risk right now. **Context & use**: - ¶11. A counterfactual about governance design, resting on the reply author's account of a proposal 12 to 13 years ago that this capture doesn't document. **Tags**: #xref #share <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### 🧠 Atomic Split Pad No permanent candidates: three unsourced claims in a heated exchange. ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - F1: Find the damages figure in the docket and compare it with "billions". ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Check the WP Engine damages claim in the filings before citing this thread — WordPress governance #things <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Tweets/They’re Trying to Destroy the Foundation, All of .Org, Demanding....md|They’re Trying to Destroy the Foundation, All of .Org, Demanding... by Matt Mullenweg]] ## Highlights - They’re trying to destroy the Foundation, all of .org, demanding billions in damages. People ask why I get worked up, it’s because @silverlake\_news is trying to drive a knife in the heart of everything that made the web great the past 23 years. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m565vqnh8d6w5k9e72f5g7wd)) - Note: [H1] The opening post frames the case as an attack on the Foundation - Tags: atom/literature/h1 - I don’t think you’re going to win this case because the laws you broke aren’t in your favor. I don’t disagree you needed to do something, I just wish you had chosen another more ethical and effective path. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m565vt0x7yep9k4w4bwrtdyh)) - Note: [H2] The reply predicts a loss and cites no filing - Tags: atom/literature/h2 - What pains me even more is 12-13 years ago Andrew Nacin, myself, and several others attempted to setup a more structured foundation to prevent exactly something like this from happening and you rejected it without even really considering what we were proposing. Had we been able to achieve even a fraction of what was intended the Foundation wouldn’t be at risk right now. We were trying to help you, and the community have more redundancy so you personally wouldn’t become an attack vector. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m565vw9bb5gm21v5bsa8gt9r)) - Note: [H3] A rejected structure proposal is offered as the root cause - Tags: atom/literature/h3