Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash • Hacker News Board

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#551

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 2:18 PM UTC

myself248 wrote: post #509

sensanaty wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

How does the force post get to you though? Surely that involves privacy.com participating.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#552

Post by baby_souffle » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 2:19 PM UTC

connicpu wrote: post #526

reisse wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's highly unlikely they'll go in court for a single user, but if everyone starts doing this, they'll sue. It doesn't matter the payment failed, you still legally owe Adobe (or any other service) money.

Reverse class action isn't a thing, there's no way to sue thousands of people all at once, so they'd have to bring their suit against every individual who did it. Costs would be guaranteed to be much higher than any possible recovery.

Why would they sue? Just send it to collections and let them sort it out?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#553

Post by simonklitj » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 2:20 PM UTC

hapidjus wrote: post #437

simonklitj wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, you can change plans (at no cost), then cancel right after the change. You get 14 days of free cancellation, which resets on plan change.

Did exactly this, got hit with the cacellation fee a couple of days later.

Really? Worked for me in February. In that case, this workaround might’ve been patched.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#554

Post by Kye » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 2:20 PM UTC

somedude895 wrote: post #434

> “Go back to the fascist-owned site where they enjoy supporting AI-generated art like your brand does,” wrote Evlyn Moreau. Yeah this is why Bluesky will never be a serious and widely used social platform. It's the same sort of cesspool as the right-wing alternatives that popped up a few years back, just more self-righteous.

There's a whole mute list for this sort of person: https://bsky.app/profile/mackuba.eu/lists/3kp6zdqoscy2x

You can also run Blockenheimer on likes and reposts for any especially toxic anti-AI takes to catch huge chunks of them: https://blockenheimer.click

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#555

Post by DeathArrow » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 2:25 PM UTC

Adobe charging subscription is one of the most asshole moves I've seen in software.

I understand that you can charge monthly if you provide a service. You can charge monthly for SaaS or PaaS, but charging monthly for a desktop application can't win the goodwill of the people.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#556

Post by wildpeaks » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 2:28 PM UTC

ciabattabread wrote: post #536

55555 wrote: post #363

Adobe 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 have one of those "annual plan, billed monthly". How the hell do I figure out when I initially signed for it? Along the way, I got two free months for getting a Logitech mouse, does that change my annual month?

When you're logged in at https://account.adobe.com/plans, click the first link in the left sidebar with your current plan, it should mention the day you signed up.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#557

Post by maccard » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 2:28 PM UTC

erkt wrote: post #534

maccard wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, that’s shitty. So let’s give them flak for that, not for something they don’t do anymore.

[flagged]

If your response to someone disagreeing with you is to just call them a bootlicker I don’t think we’re going to get very far.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#558

Post by maccard » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 2:30 PM UTC

buttercraft wrote: post #527

maccard wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. I just think it’s insane to attack a company for something they’re not doing, with the implication they are still doing it.

The implication is they can't be trusted

Honestly, that should be your default stance with any agreement with a company.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#559

Post by Riverheart » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 2:32 PM UTC

tpmoney wrote: post #539

Riverheart wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m in the camp that believes that it’s neither necessary nor desirable to hold humans and software to the same standard of law. Society exists for our collective benefit and we make concessions with each other to ensure it functions smoothly and I don’t think those concessions should necessarily extend to automated processes even if they do in fact mimic humans for the myriad ways in which they differ from us.

So what benefit do we derive as a society from deciding that the capability for copyright infringement is in and of itself infringement? What do we gain by overturning the current protections the law (or society) currently has for technologies like xerox machines, VHS tapes, blank CDs and DVDs, media ripping tools, and site scraping tools? Open source digital media encoding, blank media, site scraping tools and bit-t…

The capability of the model to infringe isn’t the problem. Ingesting unlicensed inputs to create the model is the initial infringement before the model has even output anything and I’m saying that copyright shouldn’t be assigned to it or its outputs. If you train on licensed art and output Darth Vader that’s cool so long as you know better than to try copyrighting that. If you train on licensed art and produce something original and the law says it’s cool to copyright that or there’s just no one to challenge you, also cool.

If you want to ingest unlicensed input and produce copyright infringing stuff for no profit, just for the love of the source material, well that’s complicated. I’m not saying no good ever came of it, and the tolerance for infringement comes from it happening on a relatively small scale. If I take an artists work with a very unique style and feed it into a machine then mass produce art for people based on that style and the artist is someone who makes a living off commissions I’m obviously doing harm to their business model. Fanfics/fanart of Nintendo characters probably not hurting Nintendo. It’s not black or white. It’s about striking a balance, which is hard to do. I can’t just give it a pass because large corporations will weather it fine.

That Fantasia video was good. You ever see Pogo’s Disney remixes? Incredible musical creativity but also infringing. I don’t doubt the time and effort needed to produce these works, they couldn’t just write a prompt and hit a button. I respect that. At the same time, this stuff is special partly because there aren’t a lot of things like it. If you made a AI to spit out stuff like this it would be just another video on the internet. Stepping outside copyright, I would prefer not to see a flood of low effort work drown out everything that feels unique, whimsical, and personal but I can understand those who would prefer the opposite. Disney hasn’t taken it down in the last 17 years and god I’m old. https://youtu.be/pAwR6w2TgxY?si=K8vN2epX4CyDsC96

The training of unlicensed inputs is the ultimate issue and we can just agree to disagree on how that should be handled. I think

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#560

Post by blibble » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 2:33 PM UTC

CaptainFever wrote: post #400

mtndew4brkfst wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For creation, yes, because of the provenance of the training data that got us here. It was acquired unethically in the overwhelming majority of cases. Using models derived from that training is laundering and anonymizing the existing creativity of other humans and then still staking the claim "I made this", like the stick figure comic. It's ghoulish.

The whole point is that Adobe's AI doesn't do this, yet is still hated. It reveals that some people simply hate the whole concept of generative AI, regardless of how it was made. You're never going to please them.

> It reveals that some people simply hate the whole concept of generative AI, regardless of how it was made. You're never going to please them.

and unfortunately for adobe: these people are its customers