Reading mode: Light Dark

Re: Canon censorship

Go to last post
This forum is paid for by Phil. It is his personal property. We are guests on his personal property. If you were in my house, discussing something I did not want to hear, I'd ask you to stop. If you did, I'd ask you to leave.

Joo
Hartmut said:
rudiphoto said:
This is not a plot to de-throne the King. This is freedom of speech
at work. People want to talk about this. THIS is the reason the
Internet is frowned upon in countries with totalitarian regimes -
it promotes the free discourse of information! Get used to it...
Click to expand...
But this forum is not free!
It is censored by Phil and CANON!
--
Click to expand...
--
  • Canon EOS D-30 & PowerShot S100
  • Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment. :)
 
cWills said:
rudiphoto said:
Kevin Omura said:
haven't any of you guys heard of media embargoes?????
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And Canon leaked it. So much for that. This was a freedom of
speech embargo. We are not media.
cWills109000 said:
cWills109000 said:
Phil probably signed agreements with all of the companies who send
him prerelease gear for review to the effect that he can't report
about them until a certain date.

Kevin
Click to expand...
Yes! Fine! Don't report on it! No problem... BUT DON'T DELETE OTHER
PEOPLE'S POSTS!

I have no prob with Phil editing his "editorial content" (that's
why it's called that!). He can publish whatever he likes, and we
don't have to like it. It's when he tries to censor what we (the
public) talk about that people get uset...

--
Regards,

Rudi
http://www.rudiphoto.net/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ok see your point, point taken. Perhaps Phil had to severe of a knee jerk reaction to the situation.

re freedom of speech, agree with what you all said. Yes I would think that the forums would be covered under this and don't notice anything in the disclaimer/rules above this window about discussion about embargoed topics....if big brother Canon did step in and force him to remove the links it seems almost pointless if the links to the items in question no longer existed.

re freedom of the press not something you touched upon but was brought up, a much misunderstood and misguided ideal. Case in point media coverage of Desert Storm. Military controlled almost all of the coverage and lead media around like sheep. Yeah freedom of the press....only ones that got unbiased coverage where the ones who broke from the pool and actually did some real reporting....

I guess the bottom line is, Canon Europe goofed up and we paid the price.

Kevin
 
Joo, I would imagine the little ATT banner ad I see at the top of the page might have something to do with the payment of the site. Or the montor calibrator by Spyder on the links page. I would also imagine that all of the links on the links page aren't there for totally altruistic reasons. This site is paid for by Phil, yes. Phil is paid by the advertisers who are brought here by the amount of hits this site receives which (in turn) means you and me...

If there were no hits, there would be no advertising dollars. So really we are paying for it. We pay for it with our patronage.

Also, we did not ask anyone to start this site. It was done out of his own volition. Your analogy of your house is not valid. I can't just walk into your house. That is against the law. This is public domain.
Joo said:
Joo
Hartmut said:
rudiphoto said:
This is not a plot to de-throne the King. This is freedom of speech
at work. People want to talk about this. THIS is the reason the
Internet is frowned upon in countries with totalitarian regimes -
it promotes the free discourse of information! Get used to it...
Click to expand...
But this forum is not free!
It is censored by Phil and CANON!
--
Click to expand...
--
  • Canon EOS D-30 & PowerShot S100
  • Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll
blame the equipment. :)
Click to expand...
--
Dave

http://www.pbase.com/davenit/root
 
Again, I have to agree with you, Dave. :-)
Dave Nitsche said:
If there were no hits, there would be no advertising dollars. So
really we are paying for it. We pay for it with our patronage.

Also, we did not ask anyone to start this site. It was done out of
his own volition. Your analogy of your house is not valid. I can't
just walk into your house. That is against the law. This is public
domain.
Joo said:
Joo
Hartmut said:
rudiphoto said:
This is not a plot to de-throne the King. This is freedom of speech
at work. People want to talk about this. THIS is the reason the
Internet is frowned upon in countries with totalitarian regimes -
it promotes the free discourse of information! Get used to it...
Click to expand...
But this forum is not free!
It is censored by Phil and CANON!
--
Click to expand...
--
  • Canon EOS D-30 & PowerShot S100
  • Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll
blame the equipment. :)
Click to expand...
--
Dave

http://www.pbase.com/davenit/root
Click to expand...
--
Regards,

Rudi
http://www.rudiphoto.net/
 
If anyone is still interested in seeing the press release. Just go to slashdot.org. They have a story on it over there and it's not going to get removed.

For the record, I disagree with Phil deleting the whole threads, but can understand why he did. Just removing the links would probably have been enough though.

John
 
Some people are having a very hard time understanding that a great many folks feel that their trust has been violated by the removal of certain threads. And make no mistake, it certainly has. For example, if Phil can be strong armed by Canon so easily, then how can we ever trust one of his reviews again? It's not about rumors anymore, it's about trust. The thing that really has my mind boggled is that Phil even bothered to try to put out a grass fire with an eye dopper of water in the first place, regardless of Canon's strong arm tactics. Sure, you can put out a tiny fire here, but people will just go elsewhere to talk about it. It makes absolutely no sense to try to stop something that can't be stopped, and risk alienating your patrons in the process at the same time. Talk about a no win scenario for everyone involved, from Canon right down to Phil, the banner advertisers, and the users of this site. From this point of view, it probably would have been less damaging overall to leave the forum postings alone.
 
Again, this server is not in the 'public domain'. It is a privately run business.

If you want to take your analogy further... have you purchased anything through the Ads where it could be traced back to Phil? Have you donated to the site? Hits alone do not mean Phil gets paid. Hits can be high, but if it does not generate sales for the advertiser, they're not going to pay as much (if at all). Can you say you brought Phil any money? So, unless you have, I would say that you are not paying for this site.

Joo
Dave Nitsche said:
If there were no hits, there would be no advertising dollars. So
really we are paying for it. We pay for it with our patronage.

Also, we did not ask anyone to start this site. It was done out of
his own volition. Your analogy of your house is not valid. I can't
just walk into your house. That is against the law. This is public
domain.
Joo said:
Joo
Hartmut said:
rudiphoto said:
This is not a plot to de-throne the King. This is freedom of speech
at work. People want to talk about this. THIS is the reason the
Internet is frowned upon in countries with totalitarian regimes -
it promotes the free discourse of information! Get used to it...
Click to expand...
But this forum is not free!
It is censored by Phil and CANON!
--
Click to expand...
--
  • Canon EOS D-30 & PowerShot S100
  • Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll
blame the equipment. :)
Click to expand...
--
Dave

http://www.pbase.com/davenit/root
Click to expand...
--
  • Canon EOS D-30 & PowerShot S100
  • Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment. :)
 
It's more about the "perception" of trust. As DavidP has already said, you should have considered these facts all before this happened. You should never blindly trust what the media (any media) says.

Some do try their best, but if one wants to talk about something in an absolutely perfect standards, you can't say any of them have any influence from their advertisers, their sponsers, their governments, etc.

What you have is a perception of trust. You trust to a degree you feel comfortable.

Hong.
 
Forgive me for throwing in my American two cents.

If you accept the concept of freedom of speech and further

you accept the terms set in this forum that Phil has the right to control the content of his forums, then you should accept that Phil has the freedom to censor speech.

--
Allen
(NYC)

I have no idea about that which I am writing.
Thus, I hereby retract everything I just wrote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top