It can be Adobe, Humane, Apple, Rabb1t, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, or Google. The terms of service change can be as "more complicated than that" or "not what you've heard online" as you like. When a company is asking its consumers for goodwill despite deceptive behavior, being told 'well, it's not THAT bad' presupposes these companies can only offer value unscrutinized.
Talking about a product being bad isn't what makes it bad. Just as being worried a company might start training an AI on your messages or take copyright over your art doesn't inherently make the company do those things. And yet these brands expect a one-way road of trust, for consumers to assume anything which has been done before by another company has been morally justified, and thus consumers need to shut up about it.
Don't give fucking Adobe an inch. Don't sit here and act like Google really means well with AI answers. Why the fuck capitulate to a corporation over an asterisk?
You can and should be on guard for misinformation on the internet, especially people working themselves into a panic over AI. But let's not kid ourselves: every time a company pulls a merde manoeuvre and weasels out of it with 'The Public Doesn't Understand How Business Works', it creates a new precedent of acceptance.
Negative consumer sentiment doesn't disappear just because It's Not As Bad As You Think. Benign operative changes disguise larger planned overhauls. If something with a company or service changing procedure stinks, bail: you could always change your mind later.
Little terms-of-service changes are writings on the wall to bigger planned overhauls: don't let someone tell you 'well, all graffiti is like this, it's not that bad'. Nah, fuck that.
