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

671–680 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#671

Post by CaptainFever »

skyyler wrote: post #140
fortran77 wrote: post #129

BlueSky can be brutal! I wonder how it got a reputation of being the kinder, gentler alternative?

BlueSky is a very kind place in my experience. I don't get people asking me to justify my existence like I do on Twitter. Seriously, people on Twitter demand I debate them about the validity of my life. That has yet to happen on BlueSky.

I think it depends on your identity. There are some personal identities (no, the identity is not about hating someone) that attract a lot of hatred and harassment on BlueSky.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#672

Post by UtopiaPunk »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #141
UtopiaPunk wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the person who responded, but I believe it came from a place of "what is art" (and you had used the word "artist"). My own position is that "art" can only be created by a human. AI can produce text, images, and sounds, and perhaps someday soon they can even create content that is practically indistinguishable from Picasso or Mozart, but they would still fail to be "art." So sure, an AI can create assets to pa…

The point would be to have an interesting and novel experience in an experimental medium - which has been a major driver of art since its beginning. Also, realistically, most people want entertainment, not art (by your definition). They want to consume experiences that are very minor variations of on experiences they've already had, using familiar and unsurprising tropes/characters/imagery/twists/etc. The idea that o…

I agree with the sentiment that "most people want entertainment, not art," or at least they do a lot of the time. I have a pretty wide definition of what is art, in that almost anything created by a human could be appreciated as art (whether that's a novel, a building, the swinging of a baseball bat, or even a boring sidewalk). But a lot of people, a lot of the time engage with movies and books and the like as merely "entertainment." There's art there, but art is a two-way interaction between the creator(s) and the audience. Even in the pulpiest, most corporate creations. I'm not engaging with cat food commercials as art, but one genuinely could. I agree that AI can generate stuff that is entertaining.

"The idea that only humans can make that kind of work has already been disproven." That I disagree with, and it ultimately is a matter of "what is art." I won't pretend to offer a full, complete definition of what is art, but at least one aspect of defining what is and is not art is, in my opinion, whether is was created by a human or not. There is at least some legal precedent that in order for a copyright to be granted, the work has to be created by a human being: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

"I suspect future generations of AI will be better at creating compelling original art because the AI will have a more complete model of our emotional triggers - including novelty and surprise triggers - than we do ourselves."

Again, by my definition at least, AI cannot create "original art." But I'll concede that it is conceivable that AI will generate entertainment that is more popular and arousing than the entertainment of today. That is a rather bleak future to imagine, though, isn't it? It seems reminiscent of the "versificator" of 1984.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#673

Post by ajxs »

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 posted elsewhere in this thread that when I tried to cancel, and discovered that I was actually paying for an annual plan on a monthly basis, I told their support person I'd be speaking with the local consumer affairs regulator[1]. They instantly waived the cancellation fee. I'm tempted to think they've had some trouble with regulators on this issue before.

1: https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#674

Post by hitekker »

simonw wrote: post #76
magicmicah85 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m talking about when anyone post on social media. It’s all about engagement. People don’t post on social media in the hopes that no one sees or replies to them. So I find it silly that people are upset at Adobe for having the most generic “hey we joined, show us what you’re working on” versus the useless engagement posts that are templates of “most people can’t figure out what the answer is” when the image is “two…

Social media has been a thing for 20+ years now. It's absolutely possible to achieve both: to "get engagement" and to post things that are genuinely interesting and useful and that people find valuable while you are doing it. Adobe were really clumsy here, and that's why they got burned.

Bluesky has a real problem with outrage addiction; it's myopic to pin the blame on Adobe.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#675

Post by doublerabbit »

schrijver wrote: post #497
sureIy wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate it too (and never had to use it) but $20/month is peanuts for people who use it professionally, unless they're from third world countries (which likely pirate it anyway)

The suite is $60 / month, which is not peanuts, especially since the vast majority of self-employed creatives aren’t exactly raking in cash.

Sure, but unlike a purchased copy if you are unable to afford the subscription your locked out from your own work.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#676

Post by mjmas »

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.

It seems like this would/should be covered under Australia's unfair contracts law, which requires the term to have a legitimate interest as well as being transparent (which I dont think would be met if they are charging 50% of the remainder, when they would have been happy for you to get a monthly subscription and cancel after a month, only having spent a fifth of what they would charge for termination)

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#677

Post by autoexec »

gruez wrote: post #535
croes wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could lose because of unfair business practices.

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

What it doesn't say next to the price is that if you don't connect to the internet and allow your device to beg them for permission to use the thing you already purchased your software will stop working, or that if their servers are ever down or inaccessible for any reason you may not be able to use the software you paid for on your own machine. Adobe is a shit company. The business practices they use should be outlawed.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#678

Post by zemo »

oreally wrote: post #445
torginus wrote: post #442

I just don't get how Adobe didn't get dethroned after being so unpopular for so long. There are so many Photoshop competitors, many of which are quite good, they seem to be ripe for disruption. The last version I used was CS6, which came out more than a decade ago, and even that had more than a good enough feature set. Blender is slowly taking over 3D, why can't 2D be disrupted similarly?

I'm pretty sure it's because just about every applicable art school has enforced their student's output to be done in adobe's products - meaning that Adobe has a firm grip on the educator's market. As the saying goes, hook them in when they're young and they'll be too lazy and vested to move away from their products for a lifetime.

> every applicable art school has enforced their student's output to be done in adobe's products

do instructors really require people submit PSDs or do students export their stuff to jpg/png/whatever and submit the export

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#679

Post by wizzwizz4 »

becquerel wrote: post #406
DrillShopper wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It crushes the orphans very quickly, and on command, and allows anyone to crush orphans from the comfort of their own home. Most people are low-taste enough that they don't really care about the difference between hand-crushed orphans and artisanal hand-crushed orphans.

You know "puréed orphan extract" is just salt, right? You can extract it from seawater in an expensive process that, nonetheless, is way cheaper than crushing orphans (not to mention the ethical implications). Sure, you have to live near the ocean, but plenty of people do, and we already have distribution networks to transport the resulting salt to your local market. Just one fist-sized container is the equivalent of, like, three or four dozen orphans; and you can get that without needing a fancy press or an expensive meat-sink.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#680

Post by h2zizzle »

nrb wrote: post #615
jrockway wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collections rarely does anything. I mean they will nag you, but you ask them to only contact you in writing, and it basically goes away. The collection agency could sue you, but it's rare. It involves putting together a realistic case (we are sure this person signed this contract and owes us $X) and that is expensive. The billing your credit card 50% is a "well we tried" type thing. They're happy if it works out, but…

In the US, a collection on your credit report can tank your FICO score by more than 100 points, affecting your ability to borrow at the best rate, rent a home, or get certain jobs. This would be a very risky move if the purchase was made in such a way that you are personally liable.

Depending on who you're talking to, none of those are realistic prospects anyway. Your borrowing rate will be crap, no matter what, because of your age/credit history/place of residence/skin color (and, if you really need funding, you turn to the BNPL shadow lenders or GFM); you will never earn enough to rent an entire home, or an apartment with a corporate landlord; none of those jobs will ever even look at your resume.

We are reaching a critical mass of people who have no buy-in to these structures because they've been previously cut out.

Post reply on HN