Most active commenters
  • scheeseman486(5)
  • llm_nerd(3)
  • rglullis(3)
  • grayhatter(3)

←back to thread

553 points bookofjoe | 28 comments | | HN request time: 0.002s | source | bottom
Show context
shaky-carrousel ◴[] No.43654619[source]
What a great idea, scaring companies probing bluesky. That surely won't backfire and will cement bluesky as a Xitter alternative.
replies(15): >>43654681 #>>43654704 #>>43654706 #>>43654713 #>>43654856 #>>43654876 #>>43654883 #>>43655006 #>>43655007 #>>43656703 #>>43658986 #>>43659171 #>>43659817 #>>43660073 #>>43660650 #
1. teraflop ◴[] No.43654704[source]
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.
replies(6): >>43655290 #>>43656208 #>>43656617 #>>43658750 #>>43659981 #>>43667310 #
2. ◴[] No.43655290[source]
3. ryandrake ◴[] No.43656208[source]
Thank you. I would not accept a corporate brand sending me text messages. I don't want to "engage" with brands. The less of this garbage on the Internet, the better.
4. llm_nerd ◴[] No.43656617[source]
Then don't follow or engage with their content? You understand that's your option, right?

I actually enjoy Bsky as a replacement for Twitter mostly to keep on top of news (tech and otherwise, the tech often coming from the source), along with a small selection of high profile figures. So I follow those sources and venues.

It is absolutely pathetic that a small mob attacked Adobe -- primarily a super aggressive anti-AI contingent that runs around like a sad torch mob on bsky -- and I hope Adobe return to the platform. It would be nice for people like me, who chose to follow these brands, to see the news from Adobe, OpenAI, Microsoft, etc, and my choice shouldn't be limited by those people.

replies(2): >>43659440 #>>43660475 #
5. Workaccount2 ◴[] No.43658750[source]
The platforms should be paid then.

Its a fools errand to go on a "free" platform and complain about corporate presence. If you are not paying, then those corporate bodies are.

replies(1): >>43660135 #
6. scheeseman486 ◴[] No.43659440[source]
If they can't take the heat from their customers, that's their problem.

And you can always subscribe to Adobe's email list.

replies(2): >>43659653 #>>43660140 #
7. llm_nerd ◴[] No.43659653{3}[source]
This is such an amazingly toxic, selfish attitude that you have. Is this how you really live your life?

It wasn't "their customers" that brigaded. It is the clowns who have decided that Bluesky is their own. They are the ones that will keep it from hitting mainstream, and hopefully the service crushes their obnoxious activism.

replies(2): >>43660795 #>>43661343 #
8. pndy ◴[] No.43659981[source]
Wish we could separate all that corporate entities on the internet in their own walled social network world. Where they could have all these weird marketing convos like, mcdonald being angry because pepsi "unhahaed" nestle post /s
9. RugnirViking ◴[] No.43660135[source]
this is just not true?

I have (and I imagine most people over 25 have) used plenty of forums, wikis, and other social medias that are free as in beer, hosted by some guy with a computer in his garage, with technology from decades ago

The better ones of them asked you to pay if you wanted to be able to post video/large images. In most of those spaces, corporate was nowhere to be seen. Sometimes they used banner ads, but often, nothing at all but a single person's internet bill was the entire cost of the site. Such places still exist, and are good.

The internet is getting worse by the day. It's been getting worse for so long, that people are starting to wax lyrical about how it can't possibly work any other way, this is just the natural state of things.

Of course, if you absolutely must mindlessly go to the dopamine trough and get your fix of algorithmic profit engagement, then yes, you will end up in places that relentlessly seek profit via one form of another. But if you filter even a little bit for quality, you'll end up somewhere else.

replies(3): >>43660300 #>>43660683 #>>43660684 #
10. Alupis ◴[] No.43660140{3}[source]
I think we can safely assume 99% of the outraged posters have never once owned a legal copy of, nor subscribed to Adobe products.

Outrage is a performance these days.

replies(2): >>43660696 #>>43660854 #
11. rglullis ◴[] No.43660300{3}[source]
> Such places still exist, and are good.

Oh, yes, that artisanal internet. So nice, too bad it serves only a minuscule fraction of the people of the internet.

Everyone else just goes to Reddit and Discord.

replies(1): >>43660486 #
12. cmrdporcupine ◴[] No.43660475[source]
If you don't own the platform, you don't get to control the reception.

Post on an open forum, get open forum results.

They could host a web page. That's a thing still. What's that? They want an audience? A megaphone into someone else's auditorium?

There's a cost to that.

13. grayhatter ◴[] No.43660486{4}[source]
Some might call that a feature.
replies(1): >>43663036 #
14. acyou ◴[] No.43660683{3}[source]
We took our souls and carelessly poured them out into the machine, and later the robots came and sucked it all out, along with everything that made us special, unique, human.

Was it worth it? Was it really free? Or would we have done it knowing we would all eventually pay a terrible price?

15. rchaud ◴[] No.43660684{3}[source]
Those places aren't worth their while, and blessed be they for that!

All a business cares about is maximum reach, so they will ignore the small sites in favour of the biggest aggregator for the lowest cost.

If somebody on a smaller site behaved in the disingenuous and spammy way brands do on social, they'd be banned. Bluesky is not doing that, so this should be an opportunity to genuinely engage with the audience instead of copy/pasting the cynical tactics they apply everywhere else.

16. rchaud ◴[] No.43660696{4}[source]
Contrarian takes without empirical evidence remain a rare occurrence however.
17. scheeseman486 ◴[] No.43660795{4}[source]
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.

replies(1): >>43666639 #
18. scheeseman486 ◴[] No.43660854{4}[source]
Just about everyone I know who works in graphic design doesn't have a high opinion of Adobe. Though in a sense you're right, many don't own a legal copy of Adobe products.

But that's because they've chosen something else for their personal use and only make Adobe part of their workflow when required to by their workplace.

replies(1): >>43660912 #
19. Alupis ◴[] No.43660912{5}[source]
Every single graphics professional I've worked with (many) have owned their own copy of Creative Suite (or subscribed). It's akin to their "IDE", and they really get to know it inside-and-out. It would be difficult to become skilled in the various Creative Suite products if one didn't spend a lot of time (their own and employers) in it.

The point I was raising here specifically was the people who are feigning outrage to Adobe's benign Bluesky post are unlikely to be Adobe customers, and unlikely even creative professionals at all.

Outrage and hate is a sport to these people.

replies(1): >>43662633 #
20. kaibee ◴[] No.43661343{4}[source]
> It wasn't "their customers" that brigaded.

This is a silly idea. Who else would care enough or know about it?

21. scheeseman486 ◴[] No.43662633{6}[source]
Or they do use their products and they don't like them or the company's policies. Why is this so hard for you to believe? Given a lack of hard evidence either way other than our own anecdotes, you're essentially falling into conspiracy theorizing, accusing people of being liars based on precisely fuck-all. Even going so far as to suggest it's organized, a "sport".

It's delusional.

22. rglullis ◴[] No.43663036{5}[source]
Some people also love the caste system.
replies(1): >>43664993 #
23. grayhatter ◴[] No.43664993{6}[source]
comparing small communities or forums as primarily similar to the caste system is certainly a take...

The world is not better when everyone is exactly the same, it's better when everyone has a place they feel welcome. For some people they enjoy reddit or discord, others don't. There's nothing wrong with someone preferring something made out of passion, rather than something made to make more money.

replies(1): >>43665277 #
24. rglullis ◴[] No.43665277{7}[source]
>it's better when everyone has a (place?) they feel welcome

Yes, the problem is that the overwhelming majority of people using sites like Reddit or Discord are not choosing it. They are there because it has become their only alternative.

And it has become their only alternative because all these hobbyist forums can only exist when they are serving some tiny, exclusive priviledge few. If they grow too much, they either will crumble or will find themselves becoming a "professional" service with people on payroll and revenue targets.

replies(1): >>43665640 #
25. grayhatter ◴[] No.43665640{8}[source]
> can only exist when they are serving some tiny, exclusive priviledge few

I'm not sure I agree with this, but it does fit the pattern. Auto forums are an example of this working. But I wouldn't call that a privileged few, would you?

26. llm_nerd ◴[] No.43666639{5}[source]
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 squad ruin a platform.

replies(1): >>43667656 #
27. cma ◴[] No.43667310[source]
Bluesky itself is a commercial brand
28. scheeseman486 ◴[] No.43667656{6}[source]
Yeah. Against people.

Corporations and brands aren't people.