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

651–660 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#651

Post by madaxe_again »

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 found this out the hard way…

But you know what? Karma’s a bitch. I think I am likely not alone in having used a cracked version of photoshop for far, far more time than I ever did an actual paid up copy.

I’m not unaware that piracy was part of their strategy for market penetration, and I guess it’s now a case of “we have the market cornered, let’s monetise”.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#652

Post by cosmic_cheese »

gs17 wrote: post #608
cosmic_cheese wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t use either lately because I’ve found that to be better for mental health overall, but to me it seemed that Bluesky was generally better about staying “on track” when it comes to showing relevant things, once trained. Xitter really, really likes to veer off course and so much as stopping scrolling for a second while an undesired post is on screen is enough for it to start showing more of the same type. Bsky do…

> but to me it seemed that Bluesky was generally better about staying “on track” when it comes to showing relevant things, once trained. Xitter really, really likes to veer off course and so much as stopping scrolling for a second while an undesired post is on screen is enough for it to start showing more of the same type. What is your "track"? Bluesky seemed to be behaving exactly like you described Twitter, and the…

For me at least, Bsky acted that initially but it tapered off after a certain threshold of training. After that it was pretty solid.

For Xitter it didn’t matter how much I trained it, eventually it’d insert something I didn’t want to see and even the slightest hint of engagement would push my feed that direction. This could happen even after multiple weeks of training.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#653

Post by jeroenhd »

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.

So far, Bluesky hasn't been inserting alt-right nutjobs into my feed like Twitter has.

Bluesky seems to focus on curating your own feed, to the point where mass blocklists will block hundreds or thousands of accounts, and not every blocklist is reliable. The "block first, ask questions later" approach is very freeing and I've been practicing it on social media long before it gained traction on Bluesky.

I expect the platform will be very painful for people who believe everyone should be subjected to their opinion (the people who will cry censorship because Reddit shadow-banned them). Good riddance, I'd say; they can be happy on Twitter with the rest of their kind.

On average, my experience has been a lot better. I'm guessing that's mostly because I had to fight and subdue Twitter to exclusively show me content from the people I follow, combined with social media's general attraction to alt-right nutjobs (and of course, Twitter's owner being an alt-right nutjob doesn't help either).

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#654

Post by fc417fc802 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #590
pastage wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well one could argue that this ought to be a discussion of morality and social acceptability rather than legality. After all the former can eventually lead to the latter. However if you make that argument you immediately run into the issue that there clearly isn't broad consensus on this topic.

Personally I'm inclined to liken ML tools to backhoes. I don't want the law to force ditches to be dug by hand. I'm not a fan of busywork.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#655

Post by mort96 »

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…

To people who care about ethics wrt. "AI", there is no such thing as ethical "AI".

To people who are on board with the "AI" hype train, there is no ethical problem to be solved wrt. "AI".

Neither side cares.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#656

Post by fc417fc802 »

ChrisPToast wrote: post #533
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing was stolen from the artists but instead used without their permission. The thing being used is an idea, not anything the artist loses access to when someone else has it. What is there to complain about? Why should others listen to the complaints (disregarding copyright law because that is circular reasoning)?

So many problems with your reasoning. "Nothing was stolen from the artists but instead used without their permission" Yes and no. Sure, the artist didn't loose anything physical, but neither did music or movie producers when people downloaded and shared MP3s and videos. They still won in court based on the profits they determined the "theft" cost them, and the settlements were absurdly high. How is this different? An…

It's piracy, not theft. Those aren't the same thing but they are both against the law and the court will assess damages for both.

The person you replied to derailed the conversation by misconstruing an analogy.

> what's happening is objectively wrong.

Doesn't seem like a defensible claim to me. Clearly plenty of people don't feel that way, myself included.

Aside, you appear to be banned. Just in case you aren't aware.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#657

Post by scheeseman486 »

llm_nerd wrote: post #620
scheeseman486 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares if someone is toxic towards Adobe? It's a corporate brand, people should be allowed to voice what the feel about a fucking brand . Adobe could have sincerely communicated while blocking any abusive stuff or if they couldn't be arsed, turned off comments. They have PR people to handle this stuff, or at least they did until it was probably left up to some underpain intern who doesn't give a shit.

Toxicity and brigading is the problem. Moral toxicity and brigading, where people think they are doing some good, is even worse. I'm not crying crocodile tears for Adobe. They shouldn't have deleted their post, and ultimately they just shrugged and decided that bsky didn't matter yet and just abandoned it for now. Which serves no one, but it's what you get when a small number of twats who think they're the bully squa…

Yeah. Against people.

Corporations and brands aren't people.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#658

Post by notpushkin »

lukan wrote: post #594
pizzaplatinum wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, but you can type in any fake address in your zipcode. (Or – if your card is from outside US – you can type in a completely random address and generally it will work.)

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#659

Post by doublerabbit »

maccard wrote: post #649
doublerabbit wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 permane…

At a certain point it's just beating a dead horse. A bit like screaming "Embrace Extend Extinguish" in every Microsoft thread, you're not really adding anything the discussion when you necro certain topics, and this one in particular has passed this threshold. > They are just another $corp who show no respect to their users, Great, so talk about the ways they're actually doing that not just getting mad about somethin…

> At a certain point it's just beating a dead horse.

Horses decay which where if Adobe were being dissolved than it would have no relevance; Adobe isn't defunct so I don't agree. Adobe is far from dead so while they are still operating it's worth a call out of their previous scummy behavior. It was a recent event in time.

> just getting mad about something that's no longer an issue.

I'm not mad. I don't use paid software where I don't need to. When a corporation screws up on their part, I'm going to call them out on it. It sounds like you have more of an issue rather than just skipping past. "Sssh, lets not mention that part because I'm tired of hearing it".

If you want to hear another another grudge from me with Adobe. One is that my mother forked ££ for the whole CS2 Suite on DVD. Adobe has now made it impossible to use without requiring a hack. Why should my mother not be allowed to use her own copy of CS2?

She doesn't require the latest nor can she afford the subscription in her elderly age with other life admin costs. Another show of that Adobe doesn't care for it's users. They extort for money. Not new as history dictates.

This is moot as I not going to change your mind, nor will you change mine. The pricing scandal was recent and that this topic on HN how Adobe trying to act cute does make it relevant to whole conversion of "oh by the way Adobe xyz".

Shall we start ignoring about how Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler were setting up concentration camps? Because that would beating a dead horse yet it's still taught in schools.

Adobe isn't comparable to a mass-genocide of innocent people but that was history of an important event in time. By not mentioning it you are letting it be forgotten which is bad. History is being rewritten; you can see it in action with AI censorship.

The next generation of children will have no clue of such history and that's sad.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#660

Post by fc417fc802 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #136
_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. It isn't, but it doesn't stop people from trying and hoping for a miracle. That's pretty much all there is to the arguments of image models, as well as LLMs , being trained in violation of copyright - it's distaste and greed[0], with a slice of basic legalese on top to confuse people into believing the law says what it doesn't (at least yet) on top. >…

> I'm not the one being rugpulled out of a career path by GenAI,

That's quite a bold assumption. Betting that logic and reasoning ability plateaus prior to "full stack developer" seems like a very risky gamble.

Post reply on HN