Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash • Hacker News Board

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#681

Post by jhbadger » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 9:54 PM UTC

Juliate wrote: post #482

squigz wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could say much the same thing about photographers, or digital artists. They don't use paint, or sculpt marble, so they're not real artists.

Who talked about "real" here? Photographers do manipulate cameras, and rework afterwise the images to develop. Digital artists do manipulate digital tools. Their output is a large function of their informed input, experience, taste, knowledge, practice and intention, using their own specific tools in their own way. Same with developers: the result is a function of their input (architecture, code, etc.). Garbage in, g…

Historically, it took a long time for traditional artists (painters and sculptors) to see photographers as fellow artists rather than mere technicians using technology to replace art. The same thing was true of early digital artists who dared to make images without paint or pencils.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#682

Post by gruez » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 10:09 PM UTC

liendolucas wrote: post #644

gruez wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 [...] Sounds like you're less against the concept of "annual, billed monthly" or even the "dark patterns" that Adobe is using, and more against the fact that Photoshop is now behind a $30/month subscription rather than an one-tim…

I'm against how all big companies have enshitified themselves and their products in every imaginable way to squeeze the last penny from its clients using bordeline consumer practices.

>I'm against how all big companies have enshitified [...]

"enshitified" is so vague that the statement almost a tautology. "Bad things are bad". Moreover the original claim was not that, but "unfair business practices". Uber cutting back on their generous coupons is arguably "enshittification" or whatever, but as much as I miss those discounted rides/takeouts, it'd be totally ludicrous to complain that yanking those coupons was some sort of "unfair business practice", as if uber had some sort of obligation to offer such coupons in perpetuity.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#683

Post by timewizard » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 10:11 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #238

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…

> Adobe is the one major company trying to be ethical with its AI training data and no one seems to even care. It's because nobody actually wants that. Artists don't like AI image generators because they have to compete with them, not because of how they were trained. How they were trained is just the the most plausible claim they can make against them if they want to sue OpenAI et al over it, or to make a moral argu…

> or to make a moral argument that some kind of misappropriation is occurring.

They can also make a legal argument that the training set will fully reproduce copyrighted work. Which is just an actual crime as well as being completely amoral.

> because then it exists and they have to compete with it

The entire point of copyright law is: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Individual artists should not have to "compete" against a billion dollar corporation which freely engages in copyright violations that these same artists have to abide by.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#684

Post by gruez » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 10:14 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #677

gruez wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 outla…

>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

Neither does netflix. It also doesn't mention that photoshop doesn't run on linux. Are you going to complain about that as well?

>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

Again, netfilx. Also, isn't there usually enough of a grace window that unless you're working off a cruise ship for months at a time, you'll be fine? This feels like a edge case that gets trotted out in comments than happens in reality.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#685

Post by gruez » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 10:16 PM UTC

fc417fc802 wrote: post #635

gruez wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 expe…

>The rentals make it very clear what the contract period is and what the penalty for breaking early is.

On the billboard or in the multi-page rental agreement that they send for you to sign? How is this different from than the ToS/fine print on adobe's site?

>Given that the text fails to provide details about the fee is this even a valid contract to begin with?

It's probably buried in the fine print somewhere, which courts have generally held to be enforceable.

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

No, the legal standard is "reasonable person", not whether there's enough people bamboozled by it to raise a ruckus on reddit or whatever.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#686

Post by r33b33 » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 10:21 PM UTC

reisse wrote: post #484

r33b33 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why you always use throwaway cards for this.

Of course it's highly unlikely they'll go in court for a single user, but if everyone starts doing this, they'll sue. It doesn't matter the payment failed, you still legally owe Adobe (or any other service) money.

How about fuck them then and do class action for illegitimate business practice. Also, lawsuits aren't real.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#687

Post by hammock » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 10:24 PM UTC

simonw wrote: post #36

Yeah, they posted this: > Hey, we're Adobe! We're here to connect with the artists, designers, and storytellers who bring ideas to life. What's fueling your creativity right now? > Drop a reply, tag a creator, or share your latest work—we'd love to see what inspires you! That's such a bland, corporate message. It feels totally inauthentic. Do Adobe (a corporation) really "love to see what inspires you" or do they jus…

I don’t disagree, but what are they supposed to post otherwise?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#688

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 10:31 PM UTC

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…

I dunno, man. Re-read your comment but change one assumption:

> They still won in court based on the profits they determined the "theft" cost them, and the settlements were absurdly high.

Such court determinations are wrong. At least hopefully you can see how perhaps there is not so much wrong with the reasoning, even if you ultimately disagree.

> They're training them on the actual images artists create with skills honed over decades of work.

This is very similar to a human studying different artists and practicing; it’s pretty inarguable that art generated by such humans is not the product of copyright infringement, unless the image copies an artist’s style. Studio Ghibli-style AI images come to mind, to be fair, which should be a liability to whoever is running the AI because they’re distributing the image after producing it.

If one doesn’t think that it’s wrong for, e.g., Meta to torrent everything they can, as I do not, then it is not inconsistent to think their ML training and LLM deployment is simply something that happened and changed market conditions.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#689

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 10:45 PM UTC

fc417fc802 wrote: post #656

ChrisPToast wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Curious why you say this. They seem to have made the copyright infringement analogous to theft and I addressed that directly in the comment.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#690

Post by ToucanLoucan » Sat, Apr 12, 2025, 11:00 PM UTC

CaptainFever wrote: post #403

Riverheart wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m saying that retaining information is a natural, accepted part of being human and operating in society. Don’t know why it needed to be turned into an Orwell sequel.

Appeal to nature fallacy. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-...

Firstly it’s not an appeal to nature fallacy to accurately describe how a product of nature works, secondly it’s the peak of lazy online discussion to name a fallacy and leave as though it means something. Fallacies can be applied to tons of good arguments and along with the fallacy, you need to explain why the point itself being made is fallacious.

It’s a philosophical concept not a trap card.