Adobe deleted several Bluesky social media posts promoting its Firefly AI image generator after facing significant backlash from artists concerned about copyright infringement and the use of their work in training the AI model. The posts, which featured AI-generated images alongside prompts showcasing the technology, were criticized for being tone-deaf and dismissive of artists' rights. The company ultimately removed the content and issued an apology, acknowledging the community's concerns.
Adobe Inc., the multinational software company renowned for its creative and multimedia software products, found itself embroiled in a public relations controversy in April 2025 after facing intense criticism for a series of posts published on the decentralized social media platform, Bluesky. The posts in question, which have since been removed, sparked considerable online backlash, prompting Adobe to ultimately delete them and, according to PetaPixel, effectively retreat from the platform amidst the burgeoning user disapproval. While the precise content of the offending posts remains somewhat ambiguous in the PetaPixel article, the intensity of the negative reaction suggests they touched upon a sensitive topic that resonated negatively with a substantial portion of the Bluesky user base. The PetaPixel report highlights the rapid escalation of the situation, noting how quickly the initial posts devolved into a full-blown public relations crisis for Adobe. The company’s decision to delete the posts indicates a strategic move to mitigate further damage to its brand image and reputation. This incident underscores the volatile nature of social media engagement for corporations, demonstrating how quickly seemingly innocuous online activity can spiral into a significant public relations challenge, necessitating swift and decisive action to control the narrative and minimize reputational harm. The swiftness of Adobe’s response, opting for complete removal of the content, speaks volumes about the perceived severity of the negative reaction and the company’s prioritization of maintaining a positive public image. While the exact nature of the posts remains unspecified, the incident serves as a potent reminder of the potential pitfalls of social media engagement and the importance of carefully considering the potential ramifications of online communications, especially for large, publicly traded companies like Adobe. The incident also highlights the power of user feedback and the increasing influence of social media platforms in shaping public perception of brands.
Summary of Comments ( 571 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43653885
HN commenters were largely critical of Adobe's social media strategy. Some felt their attempt at lightheartedness ("besties" post) fell flat and appeared out of touch, especially given the context of recent price increases and perceived declining product quality. Others saw the deletion of the posts as an acknowledgement of this misstep, but also an avoidance of genuine engagement with user concerns. Several suggested Adobe should focus on improving their products rather than managing their social media presence. A few commenters offered more cynical takes, speculating on internal pressure to appear active on new platforms regardless of having meaningful content.
The Hacker News post discussing Adobe's deletion of Bluesky posts after facing backlash has generated a moderate number of comments, focusing primarily on the nature of the original artwork, the implications of AI training datasets, and Adobe's handling of the situation.
Several commenters discuss the fact that the artwork used was a redrawing of a copyrighted piece, questioning whether the artist who redrew it had the right to give permission for its use. This raises questions about the chain of ownership and copyright when derivative works are involved. Some argue that Adobe should have performed better due diligence before using the artwork, regardless of the artist's granted permission.
The discussion also delves into broader concerns about AI training and copyright. Commenters point out the existing legal ambiguities surrounding the use of copyrighted material in training datasets, and the potential for lawsuits to clarify these issues. There's a sense that this incident with Adobe is a symptom of a larger, unresolved problem. Some speculate about the future legal landscape and how it might affect artists and AI developers.
A few comments mention the original "Loebner prize winner" artwork itself, expressing surprise at the amount of attention it's receiving given its relative simplicity. They contrast it with the rapid advancements in AI image generation and question why Adobe would choose such a basic image for their demonstration.
Several commenters criticize Adobe's decision to delete the posts, viewing it as an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug rather than engage with the criticism. This perceived lack of transparency fuels further distrust of Adobe's practices.
Some of the most compelling comments highlight the potential chilling effect this incident could have on artists. They express concern that artists might become hesitant to share their work online for fear of it being used without proper compensation or attribution in AI training datasets. This ties into the larger ethical questions surrounding AI art and the rights of artists.
A few comments offer alternative perspectives, suggesting that the backlash might be disproportionate to the offense. They argue that the use of the image, given the artist's permission, might not have been intentionally malicious. However, these views are in the minority, with the majority of commenters expressing disapproval of Adobe's actions and concern about the broader implications for artists and copyright.