Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

Adobe’s reputation: pricing, lock‑in, and quality

• Many commenters describe Adobe as uniquely hostile to users: dark‑pattern “annual billed monthly” plans with steep early‑cancellation fees, hard‑to‑find cancellation options, and aggressive licensing checks.
• Subscriptions are seen as turning long‑owned tools into rented access, with risk of losing access to one’s own work if payments stop.
• Some defend subscriptions as economically reasonable for pro tools (ongoing updates, camera/lens support, new features) and note that older perpetual licenses were very expensive.
• Others argue the software has degraded: slower, buggier, bloated with telemetry and low‑value features while prices climb.
• There’s frustration that proprietary formats (PSD, InDesign, etc.) keep businesses “hostage,” making it painful to leave.

Why Bluesky reacted so strongly

• Many see the backlash as specifically about Adobe’s history with creatives, not brands in general.
• Bluesky is perceived as artist‑heavy, strongly anti‑corporate‑greed and anti‑AI‑art, with many former Twitter users angry about enshittification and fascist politics.
• Adobe’s cheery “what’s fueling your creativity?” post is widely read as tone‑deaf engagement bait from a company that “enshittified” creative tools and tried to default users into AI training.
• Some think the reaction was justified accountability; others see a small “brigade” of hostile users driving brands off the platform and making it less useful.

Brands and the role of social platforms

• A sizable group explicitly does not want to “engage with brands” at all, preferring social spaces without corporate accounts.
• Others argue platforms are funded by exactly those brands, and that users who don’t like them can simply not follow them.
• There’s debate over whether Bluesky should aspire to be a broad “town square” or a smaller, taste‑driven community that rejects “engagement slop.”

AI features and ethics

• One camp credits Adobe for at least attempting “ethical” AI training via licensed stock and opt‑in terms; they see this as preferable to unlicensed scraping.
• Another camp argues this is marketing spin: training still depends on coercive licenses, opaque data, and tools that undercut working artists.
• Broader arguments surface about whether generative AI can be ethical at all, whether style can be “stolen,” and how copyright and fair use should apply to training data.
• Some emphasize that artists’ core objection is economic displacement, not just training legality.

Alternatives and partial exits

• Multiple alternatives are cited: Affinity (Photo/Designer/Publisher), Photopea, Krita, GIMP, Pixelmator, Capture One, DaVinci Resolve, Kdenlive, etc.
• Many hobbyists and some pros have left Adobe or frozen on old CS versions; others remain due to ecosystem lock‑in and industry expectations, especially in print, video, and agency workflows.

Bluesky vs. Twitter/X and toxicity

• Experiences differ sharply: some find Bluesky far kinder, especially for marginalized identities; others describe it as a left‑wing echo chamber with dogpiles, doxxing incidents, and “struggle sessions.”
• Several note that microblogging formats generally amplify outrage and mob dynamics, regardless of political lean, and that without careful moderation communities drift toward toxicity.