A lot of open source graphics software is made by programmers who also need to edit images sometimes. Both the lack of UI polish and featureset choices make more sense when looked at from that angle.
However, a lot of the criticism that gets thrown at these programs is also a bit unfounded. I regularly see people dunking on GIMP for not being a pixel-perfect clone of Photoshop for free. There is more than one way to design an image editor, and inability of some to learn another is really a user issue. GIMP could be better, but it still can and should be GIMP.
The content is being uploaded to Adobe’s servers, they likely have the right and may even be legally required to moderate it to some degree.
This yet another reminder that the cloud is just somebody else’s computer. Somebody who might want to impose some degree of control with what is done with their computer, for whatever reason.
Humane is said to be seeking a $1 billion buyout after only 10,000 orders of its terrible AI Pin (www.engadget.com)
Nature groups launch legal challenge over England's wildlife loss (www.bbc.co.uk)
Photoshop Terms of Service grants Adobe access to user projects for ‘content moderation’ and other purposes (nichegamer.com)