←back to thread

Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

(petapixel.com)
553 points bookofjoe | 7 comments | 11 Apr 25 14:01 UTC | HN request time: 1.088s | source | bottom
Show context
55555 ◴[12 Apr 25 03:33 UTC] No.43661106[source]▶
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.
replies(18): >>43661156 #>>43661248 #>>43661256 #>>43661324 #>>43662187 #>>43662338 #>>43662375 #>>43662399 #>>43663387 #>>43664265 #>>43664914 #>>43666795 #>>43667004 #>>43667057 #>>43667496 #>>43667852 #>>43667988 #>>43668119 #
sepositus ◴[12 Apr 25 03:45 UTC] No.43661156[source]▶
Wasn't there some action around this like a year ago? Can't find it now, but I thought it was investigated at some point.
replies(2): >>43661257 #>>43661837 #
1. 55555 ◴[12 Apr 25 04:03 UTC] No.43661257[source]▶
It seems you're right. I can't find how big the fine was. ChatGPT says it is still ongoing. Not sure if that's right. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/...
replies(1): >>43661393 #
2. _Algernon_ ◴[12 Apr 25 04:38 UTC] No.43661393[source]▶
We all have access to chatgpt. If we want hallucination ridden bullshit, we'll find it ourselves.
replies(5): >>43661472 #>>43661626 #>>43661879 #>>43661888 #>>43661919 #
3. elaus ◴[12 Apr 25 04:54 UTC] No.43661472[source]▶
It doesn't seem to me like the linked page contains "hallucination ridden bullshit".
4. bdelmas ◴[12 Apr 25 05:34 UTC] No.43661626[source]▶
Yes. AI becoming the first place people go for information and replacing facts and first degree of source is going to be a scary world.
5. ◴[12 Apr 25 06:32 UTC] No.43661879[source]▶
6. caseyy ◴[12 Apr 25 06:35 UTC] No.43661888[source]▶
I agree with you about ChatGPT "facts", but the parent commenter shared valuable information with a source. No need to treat them in such a rude way.
replies(1): >>43662164 #
7. kergonath ◴[12 Apr 25 07:25 UTC] No.43662164{3}[source]▶
The ChatGPT bit brings nothing. Just the source would be enough. Nobody feels the need to justify anything by saying "looked it up on Google". What matters is the actual source, and ChatGPT isn’t one.