Automattic

private open-web and publishing platform company

Automattic

Industry Open Source

A private company behind WordPress.com, WooCommerce, Tumblr, Jetpack, and other open-web services. Automattic gets real credit for supporting open-source and portable publishing infrastructure, but final control remains private and founder-centered rather than held by users, workers, or the public.

Why this matters: Tumblr's ownership is better than many ad-platform parents, but it is still private platform control.

Letter grade D Extractive Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1

Final Score 33* D - Extractive
DEXTRACTIVE33 tentative score pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material38
Bonus+5
Cap41Ownership <= 4 and Governance <= 4
After Cap41
Penalties-8
!Not Verified
Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Extraction, with the largest penalty coming from Reversibility.

Strengths

  • Extraction5/10
  • Solidarity with the Unemployed5/7
  • Product Integrity5/5

Penalties

  • Reversibility-5
  • Subscription Capture-1
  • Identity Capture-1
  • Ideological Disavowal-1

Evidence state

  • ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
  • ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
  • Linked claims17
  • Direct axis claims17
  • Coverage17/17

Scoring Axes
Axis Score Why this score
Ownership
?
Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.
3 / 10

Automattic is organized as the parent, owner, or controlling holding structure described in the linked public materials, not as a worker-, customer-, reader-, or public-governed institution.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • Automattic is organized as the parent, owner, or controlling holding structure described in the linked public materials, not as a worker-, customer-, reader-, or public-governed institution. [1]
  • context Automattic's public structure concentrates binding control in shareholders, family owners, funds, executives, or individual owners rather than the subsidiaries' workers, users, customers, or affected communities. [2]
  • context Automattic controls or benefits from subsidiary, portfolio, platform, media, retail, insurance, finance, or franchise economics at parent scale. [3]
  • context Automattic's public ownership model does not give ordinary workers across controlled subsidiaries binding democratic authority over parent strategy. [4]
  • context Automattic's parent-level structure creates ordinary corporate, investment, platform, or franchise exposure to layoffs, restructuring, divestitures, or weak exit protections. [5]
  • context Automattic's public materials do not show a durable rule requiring parent owners or investors to absorb losses ahead of workers, customers, readers, users, or affected communities. [6]
  • context Automattic's parent position gives it market, platform, brand, portfolio, distribution, data, or financing power over ordinary customers or subsidiary constituencies. [7]
  • context Automattic's controlled businesses include products or services with real public or consumer utility, but that utility is filtered through parent-level control and monetization incentives. [8]
  • context Automattic's scale makes parent-level decisions consequential for many people across subsidiaries, portfolio companies, customers, workers, or public institutions. [9]
Governance
?
Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.
4 / 10

Automattic's public structure concentrates binding control in shareholders, family owners, funds, executives, or individual owners rather than the subsidiaries' workers, users, customers, or affected communities.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • context Automattic is organized as the parent, owner, or controlling holding structure described in the linked public materials, not as a worker-, customer-, reader-, or public-governed institution. [1]
  • Automattic's public structure concentrates binding control in shareholders, family owners, funds, executives, or individual owners rather than the subsidiaries' workers, users, customers, or affected communities. [2]
  • context Automattic controls or benefits from subsidiary, portfolio, platform, media, retail, insurance, finance, or franchise economics at parent scale. [3]
  • context Automattic's public ownership model does not give ordinary workers across controlled subsidiaries binding democratic authority over parent strategy. [4]
  • context Automattic's parent-level structure creates ordinary corporate, investment, platform, or franchise exposure to layoffs, restructuring, divestitures, or weak exit protections. [5]
  • context Automattic's public materials do not show a durable rule requiring parent owners or investors to absorb losses ahead of workers, customers, readers, users, or affected communities. [6]
  • context Automattic's parent position gives it market, platform, brand, portfolio, distribution, data, or financing power over ordinary customers or subsidiary constituencies. [7]
  • context Automattic's controlled businesses include products or services with real public or consumer utility, but that utility is filtered through parent-level control and monetization incentives. [8]
  • context Automattic's scale makes parent-level decisions consequential for many people across subsidiaries, portfolio companies, customers, workers, or public institutions. [9]
Extraction
?
Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.
5 / 10

Automattic controls or benefits from subsidiary, portfolio, platform, media, retail, insurance, finance, or franchise economics at parent scale.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • context Automattic is organized as the parent, owner, or controlling holding structure described in the linked public materials, not as a worker-, customer-, reader-, or public-governed institution. [1]
  • context Automattic's public structure concentrates binding control in shareholders, family owners, funds, executives, or individual owners rather than the subsidiaries' workers, users, customers, or affected communities. [2]
  • Automattic controls or benefits from subsidiary, portfolio, platform, media, retail, insurance, finance, or franchise economics at parent scale. [3]
  • context Automattic's public ownership model does not give ordinary workers across controlled subsidiaries binding democratic authority over parent strategy. [4]
  • context Automattic's parent-level structure creates ordinary corporate, investment, platform, or franchise exposure to layoffs, restructuring, divestitures, or weak exit protections. [5]
  • context Automattic's public materials do not show a durable rule requiring parent owners or investors to absorb losses ahead of workers, customers, readers, users, or affected communities. [6]
  • context Automattic's parent position gives it market, platform, brand, portfolio, distribution, data, or financing power over ordinary customers or subsidiary constituencies. [7]
  • context Automattic's controlled businesses include products or services with real public or consumer utility, but that utility is filtered through parent-level control and monetization incentives. [8]
  • context Automattic's scale makes parent-level decisions consequential for many people across subsidiaries, portfolio companies, customers, workers, or public institutions. [9]
Labor Sovereignty
?
Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.
4 / 7

Automattic's public ownership model does not give ordinary workers across controlled subsidiaries binding democratic authority over parent strategy.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • context Automattic is organized as the parent, owner, or controlling holding structure described in the linked public materials, not as a worker-, customer-, reader-, or public-governed institution. [1]
  • context Automattic's public structure concentrates binding control in shareholders, family owners, funds, executives, or individual owners rather than the subsidiaries' workers, users, customers, or affected communities. [2]
  • context Automattic controls or benefits from subsidiary, portfolio, platform, media, retail, insurance, finance, or franchise economics at parent scale. [3]
  • Automattic's public ownership model does not give ordinary workers across controlled subsidiaries binding democratic authority over parent strategy. [4]
  • context Automattic's parent-level structure creates ordinary corporate, investment, platform, or franchise exposure to layoffs, restructuring, divestitures, or weak exit protections. [5]
  • context Automattic's public materials do not show a durable rule requiring parent owners or investors to absorb losses ahead of workers, customers, readers, users, or affected communities. [6]
  • context Automattic's parent position gives it market, platform, brand, portfolio, distribution, data, or financing power over ordinary customers or subsidiary constituencies. [7]
  • context Automattic's controlled businesses include products or services with real public or consumer utility, but that utility is filtered through parent-level control and monetization incentives. [8]
  • context Automattic's scale makes parent-level decisions consequential for many people across subsidiaries, portfolio companies, customers, workers, or public institutions. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed
?
Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.
5 / 7

Automattic's parent-level structure creates ordinary corporate, investment, platform, or franchise exposure to layoffs, restructuring, divestitures, or weak exit protections.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • context Automattic is organized as the parent, owner, or controlling holding structure described in the linked public materials, not as a worker-, customer-, reader-, or public-governed institution. [1]
  • context Automattic's public structure concentrates binding control in shareholders, family owners, funds, executives, or individual owners rather than the subsidiaries' workers, users, customers, or affected communities. [2]
  • context Automattic controls or benefits from subsidiary, portfolio, platform, media, retail, insurance, finance, or franchise economics at parent scale. [3]
  • context Automattic's public ownership model does not give ordinary workers across controlled subsidiaries binding democratic authority over parent strategy. [4]
  • Automattic's parent-level structure creates ordinary corporate, investment, platform, or franchise exposure to layoffs, restructuring, divestitures, or weak exit protections. [5]
  • context Automattic's public materials do not show a durable rule requiring parent owners or investors to absorb losses ahead of workers, customers, readers, users, or affected communities. [6]
  • context Automattic's parent position gives it market, platform, brand, portfolio, distribution, data, or financing power over ordinary customers or subsidiary constituencies. [7]
  • context Automattic's controlled businesses include products or services with real public or consumer utility, but that utility is filtered through parent-level control and monetization incentives. [8]
  • context Automattic's scale makes parent-level decisions consequential for many people across subsidiaries, portfolio companies, customers, workers, or public institutions. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity
?
Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.
4 / 7

Automattic's linked public materials do not show a durable rule requiring parent owners or investors to absorb losses ahead of workers, customers, readers, users, or affected communities.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • context Automattic is organized as the parent, owner, or controlling holding structure described in the linked public materials, not as a worker-, customer-, reader-, or public-governed institution. [1]
  • context Automattic's public structure concentrates binding control in shareholders, family owners, funds, executives, or individual owners rather than the subsidiaries' workers, users, customers, or affected communities. [2]
  • context Automattic controls or benefits from subsidiary, portfolio, platform, media, retail, insurance, finance, or franchise economics at parent scale. [3]
  • context Automattic's public ownership model does not give ordinary workers across controlled subsidiaries binding democratic authority over parent strategy. [4]
  • context Automattic's parent-level structure creates ordinary corporate, investment, platform, or franchise exposure to layoffs, restructuring, divestitures, or weak exit protections. [5]
  • Automattic's public materials do not show a durable rule requiring parent owners or investors to absorb losses ahead of workers, customers, readers, users, or affected communities. [6]
  • context Automattic's parent position gives it market, platform, brand, portfolio, distribution, data, or financing power over ordinary customers or subsidiary constituencies. [7]
  • context Automattic's controlled businesses include products or services with real public or consumer utility, but that utility is filtered through parent-level control and monetization incentives. [8]
  • context Automattic's scale makes parent-level decisions consequential for many people across subsidiaries, portfolio companies, customers, workers, or public institutions. [9]
Market Conduct
?
Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.
4 / 5

Automattic's parent position gives it market, platform, brand, portfolio, distribution, data, or financing power over ordinary customers or subsidiary constituencies.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • context Automattic is organized as the parent, owner, or controlling holding structure described in the linked public materials, not as a worker-, customer-, reader-, or public-governed institution. [1]
  • context Automattic's public structure concentrates binding control in shareholders, family owners, funds, executives, or individual owners rather than the subsidiaries' workers, users, customers, or affected communities. [2]
  • context Automattic controls or benefits from subsidiary, portfolio, platform, media, retail, insurance, finance, or franchise economics at parent scale. [3]
  • context Automattic's public ownership model does not give ordinary workers across controlled subsidiaries binding democratic authority over parent strategy. [4]
  • context Automattic's parent-level structure creates ordinary corporate, investment, platform, or franchise exposure to layoffs, restructuring, divestitures, or weak exit protections. [5]
  • context Automattic's public materials do not show a durable rule requiring parent owners or investors to absorb losses ahead of workers, customers, readers, users, or affected communities. [6]
  • Automattic's parent position gives it market, platform, brand, portfolio, distribution, data, or financing power over ordinary customers or subsidiary constituencies. [7]
  • context Automattic's controlled businesses include products or services with real public or consumer utility, but that utility is filtered through parent-level control and monetization incentives. [8]
  • context Automattic's scale makes parent-level decisions consequential for many people across subsidiaries, portfolio companies, customers, workers, or public institutions. [9]
Product Integrity
?
Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.
5 / 5

Automattic's controlled businesses include products or services with real public or consumer utility, but that utility is filtered through parent-level control and monetization incentives.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • context Automattic is organized as the parent, owner, or controlling holding structure described in the linked public materials, not as a worker-, customer-, reader-, or public-governed institution. [1]
  • context Automattic's public structure concentrates binding control in shareholders, family owners, funds, executives, or individual owners rather than the subsidiaries' workers, users, customers, or affected communities. [2]
  • context Automattic controls or benefits from subsidiary, portfolio, platform, media, retail, insurance, finance, or franchise economics at parent scale. [3]
  • context Automattic's public ownership model does not give ordinary workers across controlled subsidiaries binding democratic authority over parent strategy. [4]
  • context Automattic's parent-level structure creates ordinary corporate, investment, platform, or franchise exposure to layoffs, restructuring, divestitures, or weak exit protections. [5]
  • context Automattic's public materials do not show a durable rule requiring parent owners or investors to absorb losses ahead of workers, customers, readers, users, or affected communities. [6]
  • context Automattic's parent position gives it market, platform, brand, portfolio, distribution, data, or financing power over ordinary customers or subsidiary constituencies. [7]
  • Automattic's controlled businesses include products or services with real public or consumer utility, but that utility is filtered through parent-level control and monetization incentives. [8]
  • context Automattic's scale makes parent-level decisions consequential for many people across subsidiaries, portfolio companies, customers, workers, or public institutions. [9]
Scale Integrity
?
Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.
4 / 5

Automattic's scale makes parent-level decisions consequential for many people across subsidiaries, portfolio companies, customers, workers, or public institutions.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • context Automattic is organized as the parent, owner, or controlling holding structure described in the linked public materials, not as a worker-, customer-, reader-, or public-governed institution. [1]
  • context Automattic's public structure concentrates binding control in shareholders, family owners, funds, executives, or individual owners rather than the subsidiaries' workers, users, customers, or affected communities. [2]
  • context Automattic controls or benefits from subsidiary, portfolio, platform, media, retail, insurance, finance, or franchise economics at parent scale. [3]
  • context Automattic's public ownership model does not give ordinary workers across controlled subsidiaries binding democratic authority over parent strategy. [4]
  • context Automattic's parent-level structure creates ordinary corporate, investment, platform, or franchise exposure to layoffs, restructuring, divestitures, or weak exit protections. [5]
  • context Automattic's public materials do not show a durable rule requiring parent owners or investors to absorb losses ahead of workers, customers, readers, users, or affected communities. [6]
  • context Automattic's parent position gives it market, platform, brand, portfolio, distribution, data, or financing power over ordinary customers or subsidiary constituencies. [7]
  • context Automattic's controlled businesses include products or services with real public or consumer utility, but that utility is filtered through parent-level control and monetization incentives. [8]
  • Automattic's scale makes parent-level decisions consequential for many people across subsidiaries, portfolio companies, customers, workers, or public institutions. [9]

Penalties
Penalty Applied Why this penalty
Reversibility
?
Applied when positive conduct depends on current living leaders, founders, family owners, or other person-contingent governance rather than durable structure. Range: -5 to 0.
-5

Automattic's public parent-level model makes Reversibility directly relevant through owner dependence, investor control, policy influence, data power, product externalities, identity pressure, opacity, or harmful subsidiary business lines.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • Automattic's public parent-level model makes Reversibility directly relevant through owner dependence, investor control, policy influence, data power, product externalities, identity pressure, opacity, or harmful subsidiary business lines. [14]
Subscription Capture
?
Manipulative recurring-payment, automatic-renewal, cancellation-friction, bundling, trial-conversion, or refund designs that profit from inertia or confusion. Range: -5 to 0.
-1

Automattic's public parent-level model makes Subscription Capture directly relevant through owner dependence, investor control, policy influence, data power, product externalities, identity pressure, opacity, or harmful subsidiary business lines.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • Automattic's public parent-level model makes Subscription Capture directly relevant through owner dependence, investor control, policy influence, data power, product externalities, identity pressure, opacity, or harmful subsidiary business lines. [15]
Identity Capture
?
Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.
-1

Automattic's public parent-level model makes Identity Capture directly relevant through owner dependence, investor control, policy influence, data power, product externalities, identity pressure, opacity, or harmful subsidiary business lines.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • Automattic's public parent-level model makes Identity Capture directly relevant through owner dependence, investor control, policy influence, data power, product externalities, identity pressure, opacity, or harmful subsidiary business lines. [16]
Ideological Disavowal
?
Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.
-1

Automattic's public parent-level model makes Ideological Disavowal directly relevant through owner dependence, investor control, policy influence, data power, product externalities, identity pressure, opacity, or harmful subsidiary business lines.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • Automattic's public parent-level model makes Ideological Disavowal directly relevant through owner dependence, investor control, policy influence, data power, product externalities, identity pressure, opacity, or harmful subsidiary business lines. [17]

Bonus Credits
Bonus Credit Why this credit
Openness to Dissent
?
Credit for tolerating internal, user, customer, worker, and public dissent without retaliation, capture, or viewpoint laundering.
1 / 3

Automattic's public record shows a limited practice that can support Openness to Dissent credit, but the parent structure does not convert that practice into democratic stakeholder control.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • Automattic's public record describes its acquisition and operation of Tumblr under parent-company control rather than a democratic stakeholder-control arrangement. [10]
Constitutional Spirit
?
Credit for respecting constitutional rights and civil-liberties norms even where private law does not strictly require it.
2 / 3

Automattic's public record shows a limited practice that can support Constitutional Spirit credit, but the parent structure does not convert that practice into democratic stakeholder control.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • Automattic's public record describes platform stewardship and acquisition activity under private parent-company control rather than user-constitutional governance. [11]
Good Deal
?
Credit for unusually fair value: durable quality, fair pricing, low lock-in, and clear customer surplus.
1 / 3

Automattic's public record shows a limited practice that can support Good Deal credit, but the parent structure does not convert that practice into democratic stakeholder control.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • Automattic's public record describes continued operation of Tumblr after acquisition while keeping platform ownership and policy control at the parent-company level. [12]
Cost Transparency
?
Credit for clear posted prices, all-in fees, unit costs, public rate cards, margin/cost visibility, or surplus-allocation transparency, especially in markets where opaque quotes, hidden fees, or individualized pricing are normal.
1 / 3

Automattic's public record shows a limited practice that can support Cost Transparency credit, but the parent structure does not convert that practice into democratic stakeholder control.

Calibration notes

Comparative anchor: Parent and owner entities calibrated against listed subsidiaries, conglomerates, private-equity firms, public companies, and mission-locked alternatives.

Linked evidence
  • Automattic's public record discloses the Tumblr acquisition, but does not make parent-level economics or stakeholder-control arrangements fully transparent to affected users. [13]

Confidence Basis

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

Medium 79/100

17 verified linked claims 17 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 17/17 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

17 verified linked claims

Source quality 10/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

17 direct claims across 17 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

17/17 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending
VerificationUnverified
ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.
Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.
1Automattic is organized as the parent, owner, or controlling holding structure described in the linked public materials, not as a worker-, customer-, reader-, or public-governed institution.

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

2Automattic's public structure concentrates binding control in shareholders, family owners, funds, executives, or individual owners rather than the subsidiaries' workers, users, customers, or affected communities.

Governance Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

3Automattic controls or benefits from subsidiary, portfolio, platform, media, retail, insurance, finance, or franchise economics at parent scale.

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

4Automattic's public ownership model does not give ordinary workers across controlled subsidiaries binding democratic authority over parent strategy.

Labor Sovereignty Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

5Automattic's parent-level structure creates ordinary corporate, investment, platform, or franchise exposure to layoffs, restructuring, divestitures, or weak exit protections.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

6Automattic's public materials do not show a durable rule requiring parent owners or investors to absorb losses ahead of workers, customers, readers, users, or affected communities.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

7Automattic's parent position gives it market, platform, brand, portfolio, distribution, data, or financing power over ordinary customers or subsidiary constituencies.

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

8Automattic's controlled businesses include products or services with real public or consumer utility, but that utility is filtered through parent-level control and monetization incentives.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

9Automattic's scale makes parent-level decisions consequential for many people across subsidiaries, portfolio companies, customers, workers, or public institutions.

Scale Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed

10Automattic's public record describes its acquisition and operation of Tumblr under parent-company control rather than a democratic stakeholder-control arrangement.

Openness To Dissent Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

11Automattic's public record describes platform stewardship and acquisition activity under private parent-company control rather than user-constitutional governance.

Constitutional Spirit Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

12Automattic's public record describes continued operation of Tumblr after acquisition while keeping platform ownership and policy control at the parent-company level.

Good Deal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

13Automattic's public record discloses the Tumblr acquisition, but does not make parent-level economics or stakeholder-control arrangements fully transparent to affected users.

Cost Transparency Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

14Automattic's public parent-level model makes Reversibility directly relevant through owner dependence, investor control, policy influence, data power, product externalities, identity pressure, opacity, or harmful subsidiary business lines.

Reversibility Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

15Automattic's public parent-level model makes Subscription Capture directly relevant through owner dependence, investor control, policy influence, data power, product externalities, identity pressure, opacity, or harmful subsidiary business lines.

Subscription Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

16Automattic's public parent-level model makes Identity Capture directly relevant through owner dependence, investor control, policy influence, data power, product externalities, identity pressure, opacity, or harmful subsidiary business lines.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

17Automattic's public parent-level model makes Ideological Disavowal directly relevant through owner dependence, investor control, policy influence, data power, product externalities, identity pressure, opacity, or harmful subsidiary business lines.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed

Alternatives

AGOOD66 tentative score Debian Project open-source project · same market AGOOD64 tentative score OpenStreetMap Foundation democratic open-data foundation · same market AGOOD62 tentative score AdNauseam open-source privacy browser extension · same market AGOOD60 tentative score Fedora Project open-source project · same market AGOOD57 tentative score Kubernetes open-source project · same market

Competitors

AGOOD66 tentative score Debian Project open-source project · same market AGOOD64 tentative score OpenStreetMap Foundation democratic open-data foundation · same market AGOOD62 tentative score AdNauseam open-source privacy browser extension · same market AGOOD60 tentative score Fedora Project open-source project · same market AGOOD57 tentative score Kubernetes open-source project · same market DEXTRACTIVE30 tentative score Brave private browser and advertising company · same market AGOOD66 tentative score Lemmy open-source federated forum software · United States AGOOD66 tentative score Mastodon nonprofit open-source social network project · United States

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Automattic Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log