Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#591

Post by grayhatter »

rglullis wrote: post #581
grayhatter wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eithe…

> can only exist when they are serving some tiny, exclusive priviledge few

I'm not sure I agree with this, but it does fit the pattern. Auto forums are an example of this working. But I wouldn't call that a privileged few, would you?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#592

Post by gs17 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #163
adzm wrote: post #28

Adobe 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…

End of the day, the hate is: “The software is great, but these jerks expect me to pay for it!” Their sales went crazy because everyone was relentlessly pirating their software.

I've never heard anyone (at least not anyone who wasn't already using GIMP) complain about the concept of paying for it, it's always been the way Adobe tries to squeeze extra money out of you. First it was bundles where you'd have to buy software you didn't need to get what you do. Then it was a subscription. Also, each CS version seemed to add very little for the price.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#593

Post by buttercraft »

maccard wrote: post #558
buttercraft wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication is they can't be trusted

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

Okay, but you can also take the company's well-deserved reputation into account when deciding whether to do business with them.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#594

Post by lukan »

pizzaplatinum wrote: post #585
throwaway48476 wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And you can just get a card with a fake adress?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#595

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mjmsmith wrote: post #397
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly the moral argument Adobe is taking away from them, and the same argument has minimal economic relevance because it's so rare that a customer requires a specific individual artist's style.

That must be why AI image prompts never reference an artist name.

The vast majority of AI image prompts don't reference an artist name, and the ones that do are typically using it as a proxy for a given style and would generally get similar results by specifying the name of the style instead of the name of the artist.

The ones using the name of the artist/studio (e.g. Ghiblification) also seem more common than they are because they're the ones that garner negative attention. Then the media attention a) causes people perceive it as being more common than it is and b) causes people do it more for a short period of time, making it temporarily more common even though the long-term economic relevance is still negligible.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#596

Post by liendolucas »

gruez wrote: post #543
liendolucas wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly why it should be illegal: so people don't have to agree to an abusive and money thirsty contract.

Do you think multi-month agreements like car insurance or leases should also be illegal? Maybe if you leased a car but 3 months in you're not really feeling it, you should be able to cancel your lease without penalty?

You're extrapolating to cases that are different to a subscription to a digital software service. Companies have slowly but steadily made us shift and put subscriptions in our heads because is the easiest way to make more money and strictly control their software. This is just as pushing ads everywhere is the easiest way to make money on almost every website. The ideal, most fair consumer approach is to charge the user by its daily usage. Why? Because companies are doing exactly the opposite, they are charging us for future usage for max profitability. Just log each day I have used the app and charge me fairly. It can be perfectly done. But the excuse obviously from their side would be that is too much complex to do that, right? BS.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#597

Post by __turbobrew__ »

danudey wrote: post #104
ChocolateGod wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, good idea trawling up things people said when they were dumb and young, which they don't even think or agree with today, and trying to cancel their career over it. Not to benefit society, but to make one feel good about themselves about the victory they achieved in ruining someones life.

"Hey, this dude posted something wildly, rabidly racist in public on main a while ago. Maybe we should reconsider what kind of person we think they are instead of just taking their word that they're 'not like that anymore' and aren't just better at hiding their real opinions that they know are unacceptable to voice in modern society." The people trotting out the phrase "cancel culture" as a boogeyman also tend to run…

> someone says something dumb 5 years ago

Fire them, debank them, humiliate them, destroy their life.

> someone commits petty crime for the 13th time.

Meh

I just don’t post anything publicly anymore because the EV is clearly negative now. Luckily the people I meet in the real world are not the thought police.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#598

Post by dragonwriter »

__loam wrote: post #370
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly the moral argument Adobe is taking away from them, and the same argument has minimal economic relevance because it's so rare that a customer requires a specific individual artist's style.

Artists don't hate Adobe just because they're making an AI art generator, they hate Adobe because it's a predatory, scummy corporation that is difficult to work with and is the gatekeeper for common industry tools. Also, Adobe didn't take away the moral arguments against AI art, they just used previously liscened imagery that existed before they started making AI art generators. There's still an argument that it's de…

> Artists don't hate Adobe just because they're making an AI art generator, they hate Adobe because it's a predatory, scummy corporation that is difficult to work with and is the gatekeeper for common industry tools.

From what I've seen from artists, they hate Adobe for both reasons, and the AI thing is often more of a dogmatic, uncompromising hate (and is not based on any of the various rationalizations used to persuade others to act in accord with it) and less of the kind of hate that is nevertheless willing to accept products for utility.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#599

Post by mrangle »

A company who who has a shiny thing that it charges money for, posting on a site specifically created for the expression of the malcontent characteristic of toxic malcontents, and the output is predictable.

Undoubtedly Adobe has legions of users who take a more nuanced view of Adobe and who would also be the type to use Bluesky. And yet.

I'd consider the complaints to be essentially the emotions that come up when people covet unaffordable privately created property.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#600

Post by gs17 »

lukev wrote: post #191
Molitor5901 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty left leaning and I don't like Bluesky. For me, it's too hostile and too much of an angry echo chamber. X is scattered wildly but I with muting I have been able to shape to get a more reasonable feed.

This is a weird argument because Bluesky doesn't have a "feed"... by default you see only the people you follow unless you subscribe to specific other feeds. So you followed a bunch of people you didn't like? That says more about you than the platform...

There's a default feed, and it's awful. Part of why I gave up on the site, it never seemed to "get" me, their features for tuning it don't work, and the alternative feeds weren't what I wanted at all.
Post reply on HN