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

621–630 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#621

Post by gs17 »

Kye wrote: post #554
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

The block lists presented as a solution are a part of why I didn't care to stick around on Bluesky. 99% of what I did was manually blocking/muting people who I wouldn't want to interact with. The site almost never presented me with people I would want to talk to, and outsourcing the blocking to some stranger doesn't really solve the real problem.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#622

Post by jwitthuhn »

sureIy wrote: post #356
fxtentacle wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would describe my business relationship with Adobe as: "hostage" They annually harass me with licensing checks and questionnaires because they really hate you if you run Photoshop inside a VM (my daily driver is Linux), although it is explicitly allowed. Luckily, I don't need the Adobe software that often. But they hold a lot of important old company documents hostage in their proprietary file formats. So I can't c…

> proprietary file formats Gimp can't handle them?

It sort of can but all non-adobe software I know of, even commercial stuff like Affinity Photo, has spotty support for some PSD features.

Basically any given PSD will certainly load correctly in photoshop, but you're rolling the dice if you want to load it into anything else. More so if you are using more modern features.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#623

Post by 65 »

63 wrote: post #40
megaman821 wrote: post #14

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.

I find that the extremes of hostility are worse on bluesky, but the average skeet is much less hostile. And there's just straight up fewer skeets to be angry about.

Hello username neighbor

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#624

Post by ivolimmen »

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 would love to know how this goes in the Netherlands where we have strict rules on this. If it's not really clear rules dictate the customer is right, so that yearly subscription is simply a monthly subscription.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#625

Post by _bin_ »

cratermoon wrote: post #342
_bin_ wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but "distaste" isn't grounds for trying to ban something. There are all kinds of things people and companies do which I dislike but for which there's no just basis for regulating. If Adobe properly licenses all their training data artists don't have a right to say "well i think this is bad for creativity and puts my job at risk, ban it!!!" Or more precisely, they have a right to say that, but no moral justific…

> Right, but "distaste" isn't grounds for trying to ban something I disagree. There are many laws on the books codifying social distastes. They keep your local vice squad busy.

I thought most people supported moving away from that and towards a more socially liberal model. If we're no longer doing that I have a whole stack of socially conservative policies I guess I'll go back to pushing.

I don't think y'all really want to go down this road; it leads straight back to the nineties republicans holding senate hearings on what's acceptable content for a music album.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#626

Post by _bin_ »

skywhopper wrote: post #217
_bin_ wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but "distaste" isn't grounds for trying to ban something. There are all kinds of things people and companies do which I dislike but for which there's no just basis for regulating. If Adobe properly licenses all their training data artists don't have a right to say "well i think this is bad for creativity and puts my job at risk, ban it!!!" Or more precisely, they have a right to say that, but no moral justific…

In the context of encouraging art, it totally is! Copyright and patents are 100% artificial and invented legal concepts that are based solely on the distaste for others profiting off a creator’s ideas. The reason for them is to encourage creativity by allowing creators to profit off new ideas. So there’s no reason why “distaste” about AI abuse of human artists’ work shouldn’t be a valid reason to regulate or ban it.…

Disagree. Authority is given Congress to establish an IP regime for the purpose of "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts". You would have to justify how banning gen AI is a. feasible at all, particularly with open-weight models; and b. how it "promotes the progress of useful arts." You would lose in court because it's very difficult to argue that keeping art as a skilled craftsman's trade is worse for its progress than lowering the barriers to individuals expressing what they see.

I think bad AI makes bad output and so a few people are worried it will replace good human art with bad AI art. Realistically, the stuff it's replacing now is bad human art: stock photos and clipart stuff that weren't really creative expression to start with. As it improves, we'll be increasingly able to go do a targeted inpaint to create images that more closely match our creative vision. There's a path here that lowers the barriers for someone getting his ideas into a visual form and that's an unambiguous good, unless you're one of the "craftsmen" who invested time to learn the old way.

It's almost exactly the same as AI development. As an experienced dev who knows the ins and outs really well I look at AI code and say, "wow, that's garbage." But people are using it to make unimportant webshit frontends, not do "serious work". Once it can do "serious work" that will decrease the number of jobs in the field but be good for software development as a whole.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#627

Post by fc417fc802 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #551
myself248 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. The number of times I've caught support for various companies outright lying to me is actually fairly alarming.

It's also very obviously not against the payment network rules, otherwise privacy.com wouldn't be actively participating.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#628

Post by ziml77 »

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 looked at their plans a few years back and it was very clear that they had 3 payment options: Monthly, Annual, and Annual billed Monthly. Of course if you get the third option, getting out of the contract is going to cost you. Otherwise what would ever be the point of choosing the Monthly plan when both Annual options have a discount for going with a longer subscription period?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#629

Post by mk89 »

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.

Out of curiosity I went to their website to understand how they sell it, because it wasn't clear...

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/plans.html

I am not sure why this should face FTC or any similar mechanism to prevent "deception".

It's written right there:

US$22.99/mo Annual, billed monthly

And if you slightly scroll down the very first question is how much it costs:

> There are several Creative Cloud plans that include Photoshop. You can purchase it as a standalone app for US$22.99/mo. for the annual billed monthly plan or opt for annual billing at US$263.88/yr.

Buying it with the annual billing would save you 1$ per month.

I have seen this model used elsewhere: if you opt in for the yearly subscription, you still pay per month but you save X% over the monthly subscription.

Not sure what could they do to make it more obvious, besides writing big: we only offer yearly subscriptions, although you can pay monthly..

Edit: if you click on buy it, it leads to another option too, the monthly one. Is this the scam one? Because it says you cancel any time...

Edit again: it seems that they did quite some nasty stuff in the past and then US sued them, so now they are more transparent about their subscriptions.

God bless such organizations that sue the hell out of such bad actors until they behave well.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#630

Post by mk89 »

ziml77 wrote: post #628
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 looked at their plans a few years back and it was very clear that they had 3 payment options: Monthly, Annual, and Annual billed Monthly. Of course if you get the third option, getting out of the contract is going to cost you. Otherwise what would ever be the point of choosing the Monthly plan when both Annual options have a discount for going with a longer subscription period?

I only see annual and annual billed monthly in photoshop pricing plans. Where do you see the monthly one?

Edit: I just clicked on buy, and it leads to what you said. Apparently the monthly one is not mentioned in the front page. Weird.

Post reply on HN