This makes their brand more valuable. This makes stock holders more rich.
It’s difficult to make a case for “poor creatives” when the job of the CEO is to make the company more efficient and profitable. We can be as angry as we want but it’s really not this guy’s fault. It’s the fault of technological advancement - as it always has been.
If you look at all the creative or manual labor processes that have been taken over by technology, I don’t think many of these jobs have ever really recovered. The alternative has typically been to move to emerging markets where they can’t afford to invest in the technology but that’s very different now.
My first real job was interning at an ad agency (where I later became an art director). My first job was to page through stock photo books that filled a 15x15ft room. It took me hours or days to find a great picture and it was rare that a photo was “perfect” for the project. As an art director, the ability to just ask AI for the picture I want and get it in a few minutes is just mind blowing. At the same time, I can imagine the entire role of an art director could be eliminated and given to the account director. Maybe that job goes away too. This could really turn the entire creative marketing industry upside down.
This will depend a lot on why you want to get out of photography.
If you just want to learn how to compose a scene, direct a model for portraits, or simply record a moment in time, there’s nothing wrong with a cell phone.
If you want to learn the exposure triangle (shutter speed, aperture, ISO), you might want to get something where the lens has a manual aperture ring.
There’s a lot to consider in regard to technology and the weight / bulk ones of the camera. An older DSLR will certainly take great photos and help you learn photography, and come in under your budget, but it’ll be slower and heavier. Something with fast autofocus (great for sports and wildlife) could easily push past your budget. It could be argued that a camera with manual focus would be a more engaging picture taking experience; if that’s what you want.
Personally, I’d look at something like a Fujifilm X-E2 with a the Fujinon XF 35mm f2 lens or Fujinon XC 15-45mm lens. The camera has some advanced and fun features but with lots of manual controls. The 35mm lens is fantastic and has a manual aperture ring. The 15-45mm lacks an aperture ring but it’s small and light and allows you to adjust your field of view.
Edit: I just saw a couple X-E2 cameras on eBay including an 18-55 lens between $800-900. The 18-55 is an incredible lens but I think too big for that camera.
Other than general assumptions and track-record and being a business that sells user data, is there any actual evidence or clear and present ways that Meta could do harm to the Fediverse / its users?
All I’ve read is that it seems suspicious and we shouldn’t trust them. I totally agree with that but I’d like someone to give some examples of what they could do as a member of the network. I’ve read how they could post advertising – how would that work?
I ask because, like the previous comment, the idea of following people from other, more popular, federated platforms from the comfort and security of “open source” (?) platforms is appealing. At the same time, if this is leaving me and my platform vulnerable to something specific, I’d like to either proceed with caution or not proceed at all.
The biggest loss for me when leaving Twitter was losing access to so much happening in my community and local news and government organizations. They’re all still posting on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and not moving to the open social web. More and more are moving to Threads though so it would be nice to maintain / regain exposure.