[flagged]
Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
501–510 of 784 posts
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#502[flagged]
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#503Adobe runs what must be one of the largest deceptive rebills. The vast majority of users signing up for a monthly plan do not realize that it is actually an "annual plan, billed monthly" and thus that if they cancel after one month (for example) they'll be billed for the remaining 11 immediately. I honestly don't know how they haven't faced FTC action for this, as it's been their primary model for 5-10 years now.
I don’t get it, honestly. It’s very clear. You get a discount for an annual commitment and they let you pay monthly. It’s super clear which you’re signing up for when you do it. I’m in the UK, and there’s a 14 day cooling off period on the plans too, unless you buy the full blown annual one. I’m no adobe supporter generally, and sure they could do more, but they take an awful lot of flak for people who won’t read two…
For me the scummy part is that you can't cancel the recurring subscription in advance. If my renewal date is 2 months from now and I try to cancel they will charge me a fee immediately and end the subscription. The only way to cancel without charge is to come back right as the rebill is about to occur. There is no excuse for that other than they want to fuck over as many people as possible.
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#504Adobe is the one major company trying to be ethical with its AI training data and no one seems to even care. The AI features in Photoshop are the best around in my experience and come in handy constantly for all sorts of touchup work. Anyway I don't really think they deserve a lot of the hate they get, but I do hope this encourages development of viable alternatives to their products. Photoshop is still pretty much p…
> Adobe is the one major company trying to be ethical with its AI training data and no one seems to even care. It's because nobody actually wants that. Artists don't like AI image generators because they have to compete with them, not because of how they were trained. How they were trained is just the the most plausible claim they can make against them if they want to sue OpenAI et al over it, or to make a moral argu…
I went through a phase of using the A.I. tools to touch up photos and thought they were helpful. If I needed to add another row of bricks to a wall or remove something they get it done. I haven’t used it in a few months because I’m taking different photos than I was back then.
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#505[flagged]
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a fee for cancelling an annual subscription that you agreed to.
That's exactly why it should be illegal: so people don't have to agree to an abusive and money thirsty contract.
They have the option right next to that for a monthly only option.
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t get it, honestly. It’s very clear. You get a discount for an annual commitment and they let you pay monthly. It’s super clear which you’re signing up for when you do it. I’m in the UK, and there’s a 14 day cooling off period on the plans too, unless you buy the full blown annual one. I’m no adobe supporter generally, and sure they could do more, but they take an awful lot of flak for people who won’t read two…
For me the scummy part is that you can't cancel the recurring subscription in advance. If my renewal date is 2 months from now and I try to cancel they will charge me a fee immediately and end the subscription. The only way to cancel without charge is to come back right as the rebill is about to occur. There is no excuse for that other than they want to fuck over as many people as possible.
Yep, that’s shitty. So let’s give them flak for that, not for something they don’t do anymore.
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#508[flagged]
I wish it were that simple. As an occasional amateur photographer, I’ve looked for alternatives to Lightroom with a simple UX, and to my surprise the alternatives are far more complex and unintuitive than a old software such as Lightroom.
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you make virtual cards?
Lots of banks have them these days. In the US there's also stuff like privacy.com (unaffiliated, not even in the US personally :p) Last I used Revolut 2 years ago, they even had a "disposable" virtual card, meaning after 1 charge it's automatically deleted.
They can force-post right past Privacy.com's veil, NYTimes did it to me. Here's what Privacy's support rep had to say about it:
> Hi, Firstname
> I've been reviewing your dispute and wanted to touch base with you to explain what happened.
> It appears that the disputed charge is a "force post" by the merchant. This happens when a merchant cannot collect funds for a transaction after repeated attempts and completes the transaction without an authorization — it's literally an unauthorized transaction that's against payment card network rules. It's a pretty sneaky move used by some merchants, and unfortunately, it's not something Privacy can block.
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Not only that, they also assume or pretend that this is obviously violating copyright, when in fact this is a) not clear, and b) pending determination by courts and legislators around the world.” Uh huh, so much worse than the people that assume or pretend that it’s obviously not infringing and legal. Fortunately I don’t need to wait for a lawyer to form an opinion and neither do those in favor of AI as you might’ve…
This is silly. What are you proposing? A coup to ban AI? Because that is the alternative to waiting for legislators and courts.
Never proposed a ban, the issue is copyright, use licensed inputs and I could care less.
Pro AI people need to stop behaving like it’s a foregone conclusion that anything they do is right and protected from criticism because, as was pointed out, the legality of what is being done with unlicensed inputs, which is the majority of inputs, is still up for debate.
I’m just calling attention to the double standard being applied in who is allowed to have an opinion on what the legal outcome should be prior to that verdict. Temporal said people shouldn’t “pretend or assume” that lots of AI infringes on other people’s work because the law hasn’t caught up but the same argument applies equally to them (AI proponents) and they have already made up their mind, independent of any legal authority, that using unlicensed inputs is legal.
The difference in our opinions is that if I’m wrong, no harm done, if they’re wrong, lots of harm has already been done.
I’m trying to have a nuanced conversation but this has devolved into some pro/anti AI, all or nothing thing. If you still think I want to ban AI after this wall of text I don’t know what to tell you dude. If I’ve been unclear it’s not for lack of trying.