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

631–640 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#631

Post by Juliate »

luckylion wrote: post #616
Juliate wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ludicrous rebuttal. Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take on the eye and focus of the person that decides to take a picture, where/when he/she is; this is really revealing you do not practice it. And... before cameras were even electronic, back in the early 2000, there were already thousands and more of extremely gifted photographers. Yes, cameras are marvellous tools. But they are _s…

> Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take What's more important: the person behind the camera or the camera? Show me the photos taken without the camera and then look at all the great photos taken by amateurs. > They require training sets to be anywhere near useful. And the camera needs assembly and R&D. But when either arrives at your door, it's "ready to go". > Cameras _do not_ feed o…

You’re confusing the tools (which are their own marvels) and the practice (which is art, using the tools).

However good or not is the camera, it’s not the camera that dictates the inner qualities of a photograph, there is _something else_ that evades the technicalities of the tools and comes from the context and the choice of the photograph (and of accident, too, because it’s the nature of photography: capturing an accident of light).

The same camera in the hands of two persons will give two totally different sets of pictures, if only because, their sight, their looking at the world is different; and because one knows how to use the tools, and the other, not in the same way, or not at all.

It’s not a matter of « feeling artsy » or special, it’s a matter of « doing art ».

Everyone is an artist, if they want to: it’s a matter of practicing and intent, not a matter of outputting.

Art is in the process (of making, and of receiving), not in the output (which is the artefact of art and which has its own set of controversial and confusing economics and markets).

Generative AI on the contrary of tools that stay in their specific place, steals the insight from previous artists (from the training set) and strips the prompter from their own insights and personality and imprint (because it is not employed, but only through a limited text prompt at an interface).

Generative AI enthousiasts may be so. They have every right to be. But not by ignoring and denying the fundamental steal that injecting training sets without approval is, and the fundamental difference there is between _doing art_ and asking a computer to produce art.

Ignoring those two is a red flag of people having no idea what art, and practice is.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#632

Post by doublerabbit »

maccard wrote: post #568
lmm wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m not suggesting we just forgive and forget That seems to be exactly what your posts amount to though?

No, I’m saying call them out on the shit they _are_ doing that you don’t want them to do, and don’t drag every mention of them into the same topic ad nauseum.

> ad nauseum

I disagree. Abusive relationships need constant call-out and their BlueSky post was exactly that, a reminder.

Just because your fed up with hearing it; I am not. It's a a real history to how they acted, got away and demonstrates that they would happily screw you again.

They are just another $corp who show no respect to their users, they've done it once, they will do it again. Let it be a count of permanent mark of how they treat their user-base.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#634

Post by squigz »

Juliate wrote: post #602
luckylion wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With AI prompters, the output is part function of the (very small) prompt, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) training set, part randomness. With photographers, the output is part function of the (very small) orientation of the camera and pressing the button, part function of the (huuuuuuuge) technical marvel that are modern cameras, part randomness. Let's be realistic here. Without the manufactured cameras, 99.9% o…

Ludicrous rebuttal. Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take on the eye and focus of the person that decides to take a picture, where/when he/she is; this is really revealing you do not practice it. And... before cameras were even electronic, back in the early 2000, there were already thousands and more of extremely gifted photographers. Yes, cameras are marvellous tools. But they are _s…

> Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take on the eye and focus of the person that decides to take a picture, where/when he/she is; this is really revealing you do not practice it.

Oh, the irony...

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#635

Post by fc417fc802 »

gruez wrote: post #582
Bluestrike2 wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sympathet…

It isn't grasping at straws because confusing or misleading people is literally how dark patterns work.

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

The rentals make it very clear what the contract period is and what the penalty for breaking early is. Those terms are also tightly regulated in most jurisdictions for exactly the reason that they are prone to abuse.

> I'd expect buyers to read the very legible text under the price tag.

Given that the text fails to provide details about the fee is this even a valid contract to begin with? On multiple levels there's clearly been no meeting of the minds.

> if you read most complaints, it's clear that they're not even aware that such early termination fee even existed.

Isn't that a strong case that it's an unfair practice?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#636

Post by sgustard »

derefr wrote: post #387
speff wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not buying a monthly plan for their Annual billed Monthly option. You're literally buying a year's worth, but paying it off in 12 installments over time. If someone were to buy the monthly plan, cancel it, and still get billed for it, yes you would have a point.

You're not buying "a year's worth." Adobe can't roll a truck up with all your future project rendering hours on it and dump them on your lawn, such that they would have a valid legal argument of "you can't cancel, we already gave you the whole thing." What Adobe are giving you, each month — each second, even — is the DRM licensing functionality built into Photoshop continuing to spit out a "valid" signal. Because tha…

This is useful and informative. But also, no I don't expect companies to keep track of everything that is illegal anywhere in the world, and then not offer it anywhere. Otherwise we'd have no alcohol or chewing gum or pet cats.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#637

Post by fc417fc802 »

maccard wrote: post #489
liendolucas wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fee application for cancelling a subscription service should be absolutely illegal.

It’s a fee for cancelling an annual subscription that you agreed to.

Failure to disclose the exact amount of the fee up front should invalidate it.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#638

Post by zifpanachr23 »

huhkerrf wrote: post #462
homefree wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bluesky is the worst of old Twitter concentrated into one place. It's some weird mixture of the hall monitors of Mastodon crossed with wannabe members of the weather underground. Like a leftwing Gab full of only Kara Swisher and Taylor Lorenz types. This sort of of faux outrage at adobe is par for the course - its awful over there. X is much more of an ideological mix.

I've heard it described as Digital Canada, which I think is just the perfect description.

Lmao

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#639

Post by cma »

teraflop wrote: post #9
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #4

What a great idea, scaring companies probing bluesky. That surely won't backfire and will cement bluesky as a Xitter alternative.

Maybe, just maybe, the platforms that we use to engage socially with other human beings don't also have to be organized around engaging commercially with brands.

Bluesky itself is a commercial brand

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#640

Post by [deleted] »

megaman821 wrote: post #260
mjmsmith wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "the anti direction" mean? It's mean to racists?

That it gives no-one pause to make disparaging remarks against white males, and violent allusions towards the outgroup are tolerated. That is not the vibe I want to see. I would hope that, starting fresh, there would be more cultural backlash against racial and gendered stereotypes and violence.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN