@Adobe@AdobeCare@adobe@adobecare Offering something for free, then creating a technical glitch, requiring the customer to sign up and pay for a new subscription and agreement before they can use the free service is false advertising and a scam. Your Support is attempting to scam customers.
@adobe and @AdobeCare are trying to scam customers into keeping adobe accounts by offering 2 free months, causing a technical issue with customer accounts that requires the cust to sign up for and pay for a new subscription, before you can use the apps. This is false advertising
@MJphotographyHK@AtomosGlobal I just upgraded to os11 and did not loose any previously purchased addons. They are still activated and working… If we already have h.265 and SDI RAW addons, then there should be a discount for the “os11 features” as the $79 is only adding 2 false colors for most customers.
@AtomosGlobal It's crazy you came out with the Ninja + a little over 2 years ago, and now it is unsupported. Customers cannot upgrade the ninja v or ninja v + to AtomOS 11. The 3 year extended warranty basically means nothing. Doesn't look good from our perspective.
@redactednews This is just a long ad using random clips from different times to make it look worse than it is to sell you garbage. I used to like and watch Redacted daily, until I figured out that they propagandize the news to sell you scammy nonsense that they are directly invested in.
@Humane Lol it's funny how cyborgs label themselves as "Humane"... There is nothing human about this presentation. It see what appear like 2 human like robots presenting useless tech to other robots... It is crazy how much money gets pumped into nonsense.
@SasqLocke@Lukewearechange And if you enter into an agreement to not say or do certain things, you consent to an agreement to strip yourself of rights… This is either truly fucked or all agreements or NDA’s are a violation of 1st amendment and cannot be held up as they cannot supersede the constitution.?.
@SasqLocke@Lukewearechange The stupidest phrase in that agreement is “utter loud” if he or his lawyers were smart enough to get that removed from the condition, this would not be a case.
They only have to show he spoke “loudly”, nothing else after that really matters.
@SasqLocke@Lukewearechange #2 is the main violation
Even if he said nothing “no speech” he still violated #2 which is reinforced by #3 which expands to basically the entire “grounds” with the added description at the bottom of the conditions
You are only paying attention to condition #1 .