Live data from Hacker News

Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

petapixel.com

581–590 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people also love the caste system.

comparing small communities or forums as primarily similar to the caste system is certainly a take... The world is not better when everyone is exactly the same, it's better when everyone has a place they feel welcome. For some people they enjoy reddit or discord, others don't. There's nothing wrong with someone preferring something made out of passion, rather than something made to make more money.

>it's better when everyone has a (place?) they feel welcome

Yes, the problem is that the overwhelming majority of people using sites like Reddit or Discord are not choosing it. They are there because it has become their only alternative.

And it has become their only alternative because all these hobbyist forums can only exist when they are serving some tiny, exclusive priviledge few. If they grow too much, they either will crumble or will find themselves becoming a "professional" service with people on payroll and revenue targets.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#582
post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? It clearly says "Annual, billed monthly" and "Fee applies if you cancel after 14 days." next to the price.

This is a bit longer than I would have wanted to spend writing about Adobe billing practices, but oh well. Is it the most manipulative dark pattern in e-commerce? Hardly--there are plenty far more vicious--but it's still an attempt to prime a would-be subscriber to focus on the annual, billed monthly and play on their understanding of the word "monthly" by using it in both options. "Annual, billed monthly" is set in…

>but it's still an attempt to prime a would-be subscriber to focus on the annual, billed monthly and play on their understanding of the word "monthly" by using it in both options.

Do you think "$500 biweekly" car ads, or "$2000/month" apartment rentals are the same?

>"Annual, billed monthly" is set in smaller italicized type right under the actual price of US$59.99/mo on the main pricing page[0].

I might be sympathetic to this reasoning if this was a $2 coffee or something, but $60/month is nothing to be sneezed at, and I'd expect buyers to read the very legible text under the price tag. Otherwise, this makes as much sense as complaining about supermarket price tags that show "$4" in huge font, and "/lb" in small font, claiming that it misled buyers into thinking an entire package of ground beef costs $4, because the $4 price tag "primed" them or whatever.

>While it mentions a fee for cancelling after 14 days, you'll find nary a mention of what that fee actually is until you track down a legal page[1] that isn't linked to any point during the payment process up until the sign-in prompt (I didn't bother creating a new account to look beyond that). At the very least, it's not present during the stage when you're still relatively uncommitted and somewhat more likely to notice any more onerous terms were they present.

Okay but if you read most complaints, it's clear that they're not even aware that such early termination fee even existed. There's approximately zero people who were aware the termination fee existed, found it too hard to figure out what it actually was, but somehow still went with the "Annual, billed monthly" option.

>Finally, there's an option for a 30-day free trial of Adobe Stock. I'd have sworn it was pre-selected a few years ago, but I may be mistaken on that. If it was, then at least that's a change for the better. Anyhow, did you notice how it's on a 30 day trial period whereas the normal plan has a 14 day cancellation window? Let those deadlines fall to the back of your mind for a week or two, and will you remember which is 14 days and which is 30? There was no reason why Adobe had to use 30 days for Stock or only 14 days for their other offerings. But it adds to the confusion, and that's the entire purpose of a dark pattern. Stock is also an "annual, billed monthly plan," but nowhere in the checkout process is it mentioned that Stock also has a large cancellation fee. That's hidden in a separate part of the Subscription Terms page.[1]

This feels like grasping at straws. If we're going to invoke "people might get two numbers confused with each other", we might as well also invoke "people can't calculate dates properly, and therefore a 14 day cancellation window is misleading because they think 14 days = 2 weeks, and set up a cancellation reminder for the same day of the week 2 weeks afterwards, not realizing that would be just over 14 days and thus outside the window".

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#583
post #576
post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? It clearly says "Annual, billed monthly" and "Fee applies if you cancel after 14 days." next to the price.

They could write they get the blood of your first born. Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal Ask the FTC what they think or at least thought before Trump https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40707558

>They could write they get the blood of your first born.

Sounds like a pretty good deal given how much money you'd save and how drawing modest amounts of blood has basically zero downsides.

>Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal

And just because you invoke "Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal", doesn't make it invalid.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#584
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when did a damn website have to be a "platform"? Did anyone ask to chat with Time Warner on the public AOL chatrooms of the 90s? Were Digg users interested in hearing from Blockbuster in the 2000s? Adobe could try to offer virtual "office hours" with employees helping people learn to use the software, give something back to their users. Instead they immediately treated it like another marketing channel with a f…

Platforms which drive away normal users with unwarranted hate become increasingly concentrated with toxic people over time. If bluesky don’t find a way to escape this spiral of driving away normal people and attracting toxic people it’s going to become a sort of left-wing 4chan.

Oh no! Imagine if all the corporate advertisers left our social media platform!

That would be like Hacker News but without all the shills using it. Practically unrecognizable, all the "normal people" would be gone.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck finding Asfghjs Fghdjsk using only his email address, fdsfgsd@tempemail.test.

They use the billing address. KYC makes it easy.

Good luck finding Zyyzzyzx Balleyhew whose address on the temporary card is registered at PO Box 42069, Utqiagvik, AK

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#586

As a photographer, I have a love/hate relationship with Adobe. I’m not a fan of many aspects of their business, but Lightroom is a (sometimes) excellent product. On the one hand, I don’t have much sympathy for Adobe. On the other hand, this whole situation is why I am not on social media these days with the exception of HN and niche subreddits. Even if much of the criticism they receive is warranted, the social media…

Online communities have an inherent death spiral dynamic, unless you actively moderate away toxic people. These people drive away normal folks creating an ever more distilled community of unpleasant folks. How many normal people are going to hang around places like reddit and bluesky that are seemingly now filled with hate and conspiracy theories.

[dead]

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#587
post #583
post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could write they get the blood of your first born. Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal Ask the FTC what they think or at least thought before Trump https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40707558

>They could write they get the blood of your first born. Sounds like a pretty good deal given how much money you'd save and how drawing modest amounts of blood has basically zero downsides. >Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal And just because you invoke "Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal", doesn't make it invalid.

That’s why I wrote they could lose not they would lose.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#588

As a lurker on both Bluesky and Twitter, I find Bluesky is a much more hostile place. Twitter is much more absurd but there is not as much anger.

Maybe it shouldn't have been surprising after Democrats removed abolishing the death penalty from their party platform, but all the Mangione stuff on bluesky was pretty sad to see.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it possible that it could be both? That while artists maybe do feel under attack in terms of competition, that there is a genuine ethical dilemma at hand? The rights artists have over their work are economic rights. The most important fair use factor is how the use affects the market for the original work. If Disney is lobbying for copyright term extensions and you want to make art showing Mickey Mouse in a cage…

> But substantially the same thing happens if the AI is trained on some other artist's work instead. You could take that further and say that "substantially the same thing" happens if the AI is trained on music instead. It's just another kind of artwork, right? Somebody who was going to have an illustration by [illustrator with distinctive style] might choose to have music instead, so the music is in competition, so…

If you type "street art" as part of an image generation prompt, the results are quite similar to typing "in the style of Banksy". They're direct substitutes for each other, neither of them is actually going to produce Banksy-quality output and it's not even obvious which one will produce better results for a given prompt.

You still get images in a particular style by specifying the name of the style instead of the name of the artist. Do you really think this is no different than being able to produce only music when you want an image?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it possible that it could be both? That while artists maybe do feel under attack in terms of competition, that there is a genuine ethical dilemma at hand? The rights artists have over their work are economic rights. The most important fair use factor is how the use affects the market for the original work. If Disney is lobbying for copyright term extensions and you want to make art showing Mickey Mouse in a cage…

Actually moral rights is what allow you to say no to AI. It is also a big part of copyright and more important in places were fair use does not exist in the extent it does in the US. Further making a variant of a famous art piece under copyright might very well be a derivative. There are court cases here just some years for the AI boom were a format shift from photo to painting was deemed to be a derivative. The pict…

> Actually moral rights is what allow you to say no to AI.

The US doesn't really have moral rights and it's not clear they're even constitutional in the US, since the copyright clause explicitly requires "promote the progress" and "limited times" and many aspects of "moral rights" would be violations of the First Amendment. Whether they exist in some other country doesn't really help you when it's US companies doing it in the US.

> Further making a variant of a famous art piece under copyright might very well be a derivative.

Well of course it is. That's what derivative works are. You can also produce derivative works with Photoshop or MS Paint, but that doesn't mean the purpose of MS Paint is to produce derivative works or that it's Microsoft rather than the user purposely creating a derivative work who should be responsible for that.

Post reply on HN