Deleted Posts, Censorship, and Content Manipulation

I was done with this site but as per the commitment I made in my last post I'm back to question it's deletion.  I believe I specifically pondered in that post how long it would stay active, I guess about a week is the time limit for dissent and Top Content domination.  I'm not sure which is worse, the fact that the post was deleted or the fact that the entire thread was deleted.  I guess it's better for PR to delete the entire thread...

"APM 2.5 with Ublox on a quadcopter - Issues - Disappointment"


It's sad really, because this place never does change.  I've been told by more old timers than I can count how this place operates - how dissent is squashed, edited, or deleted, how words get minced and manipulated, how the next hardware will be rushed out, then 10 revisions will follow in poor attempts to fix it, how most of the ideas will be copied and passed off as original, how "known" issues are never mentioned or publicized and only come out after someone gets or nearly gets hurt, and then get covered up after the fact, and on and on and on.


A post finally gets made outlining a lot (not all) of the major failings of this project and genuinely asks for feedback from the top to help squash or explain what's really going on - no feedback was made, the mods threw everything back on the users, and in the end the entire thread was removed.  Par for the course IMHO.


While people may not have agreed to everything I said, the end result is that they are finally starting to speak up, finally starting to demand changes, finally starting to wake up to what's going on here, and then what?  A coverup and the posting of a bunch of positive stuff to deflect attention away from the real issues people care about.


It seems like this project only hides issues for commercial reasons and that chasing of money puts people at risk. It takes 10 seconds to write a simple announcement about a bug and ask people to upgrade, there is really no shame in it, so finding out later that the issue/bug was "known" makes it worse for everyone.


Also: The excuse for Ning is that they cannot migrate to any other package - has anyone looked into this?  It would appear that IPB and phpBB both have importers for Ning. (see screenshot for IPB)



Why is the TRUTH so illusive for 3D Robotics and DIYDrones?  Why all the hate?  Why all the coverups?  Why all the manipulation?  Why all the accusations?  The truth would probably shock us all, but there would be no need for all of that if there weren't anything that NEEDED TO BE covered up in the first place.  Actions speak louder than words, so despite all your PR and marketing prowess, your actions here clearly tell us that there is information you do not want the public, mods, devs, et al to know -- otherwise why go through all the trouble?

The truth is easy, lying and covering things up takes a lot of time and effort.

Screen shot 2012-09-05 at 11.12.40 AM.png

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Email me when people reply –


  • just wondering if you actually did leave the forum. deleting your account I mean. I was about to when I noticed there is one option during the account removal. 'Delete my content' and it is active by default. did you delete your own thread when you killed your account?

    I will leave my account active for now just in case, so this message can be read.

  • I am soooo very new to computerized RPV-ing that I laugh at my own cluelessness.  Although, I have been rubber-band-powered escapement flying R/C waaaaay back when Tx/Rx combos had radio tubes not even discrete transistors!  I became excited about the possibilities of Multirotor UAVS to act as an aerial platform for teaching Newtonian Mechanics ( Kinematics of Flight ), remote data acquisition and environmental sampling.

    Disappointing to me is what I see as ego, bickering, and  so forth.  Why, oh Why can't we all be positive and helpful to each other.  EVERYONE- manufacturers, retailers, end-users; EVERYONE. Maybe I just haven't grown up.  Guess I'll stay a kid at heart whose Dreams out-fly his UAVS.

  • Youve got your own website, (ZEN)  and you have said more times then I can count that your done here. Why not stick to that? 

    "Youve got your stated goal We want to be able to safely fly around our children and other people, without fear of random unexplained failure from our autopilot gear." Why not work on that?

    OF that whole thread, The only thing decent to come out of it is some good ideas about the Wiki.

    I started a thread for peopleunhappy with there APM hardware, So that there hardware can be boug... by a group of members and you can go to a platform that you would be happier with.

    Here is one for people who want to help Improve the wiki.

    And for those who are interested in what Zen has to say, His theory's on Chris Anderson's "Real Agenda' And maybe then you can find the "Real Truth That has been covered up by the DIY Drones Marketing Blitz, the coverups, the lies, and the manipulation" and everything else along those lines. There is a whole Website  where you can go and discuss all of this,

    Including Deleted Posts, Censorship, and Content Manipulation

    There are now appropriate venues to further these discussions. That means that is no need to continue this thread, and we can all get back to discussing our collective hobby, using our chosen Platform.

  • pffft, shut up and fly !!!


  • There are a lot of frustrations inherent in a community-developed, open project, especially when a commercial company is involved and the line dividing responsibilities (e.g. customer support, forum policy oversight) between the company and the community can be blurry.

    I have also felt some of that frustration, and expressed it (e.g. here, here, and here). In every instance I've found the community, 3DR, and Chris to be very helpful.

    A summary of previous comments for readers who don't have time to waste:

    - Zen posted a thread about disappointing flight experience (useful!), which also contained inflammatory accusations that many here consider to be libel.

    - A moderator (as of yet, unidentified) deleted it.

    - Zen posted the current post, asserting that his original post should not have been deleted, and presenting conspiracy theories.

    - Chris replied, agreeing that the post should not have been deleted and saying he will try to figure out which mod deleted the post.

  • For what it's worth, I'm a lot happier with arducopter as of 2.7.3 so good job to the developers. Loiter and such actually works, but there are still many issues, mainly with the GPS not getting a lock in a reasonable time essentially making this board no better than a kkboard(at times). I would have bought a ublox module already (and probably would have shut up by now) if it was the $50 it should be considering the mediatek one on the 2.0 hardly works. Asking for the same discount buyers of the 2.5 get is not at all unreasonable i think.

    I also have to add harsh criticisms for deleting that post; it is extremely beneficial for this site to delete such negative publicity so there is no way it was a mistake. Don't do it, you'll upset everyone here eventually.

  • Obvious troll is obvious.

  • Welcome to the Google universe.  Everything is censored, because everything takes a server & infrastructure somewhere.  Unfortunately, most of the information is controlled by 1 company.

  • Not to add fuel to the fire... I am curious though, what of Zen's opinion was consider libelous or unsubstantiated? I saw at least one request to sue those that were speaking out on these postings specifically. Really libel? Much of his complaints can be corroborated by several others. 


    Then for gosh sakes, CORROBORATE THEM!  Quoting un-named sources is not corroboration, it's hearsay.  And when the accusations are untrue, and attack the reputation of a person, then it is libel!


    What exactly is libelous in those comments?  Let's see, I've heard it said that Chris/Arducopter has STOLEN code from OP.  I asked for specific examples, should be easy, our source is open, but no examples provided.

     I've heard it said that Chris/3DR purposefully mislead, and engage in false advertising.  Please show an example of this.  False advertising should be easy to demonstrate.  Show us where Ardupilot makes specific claims of performance.  


    I've heard that Arducopter is not truly open source, because for example some of the code contains meaningless hex dumps to 3rd party chipsets.  Uh, if you can see the code, then it's not closed, now is it?  If you want to know what it does, it's your job to get the documentation of the chips, and figure out what the bit banging is doing.  It's not Arducopter's fault that the GPS MPU chip makers require this configuration.  


    Further it's been alleged that 3DR/Arducopter will be trying to implement some kind of software/hardware authentication to prevent copying/cloning.  Again, prove it.  It would be pretty stupid to try and do this in open source software, because it would be trivial for anybody to strip it out or modify it to run on any other board.


    Finally, I've heard it stated that Jordi was the one responsible for the anti-OP PM spamming at RCG.  Again, prove it!  


    As Tony said, it is not up to you to make accusations, and then expect them to be dis-proven.  It is up to you to prove them.  Otherwise the allegations are libellous!


    Man I'm tired of this.

  • 3D Robotics

    I have no idea which Moderator deleted that thread (it wasn't me, and this is the first I've heard of it) but they shouldn't have. We have a strict policy here that users own their own words and that posts (not threads) should only be deleted if they are in violation of the TOS. Unfortunately, the Ning platform does not provide history so I can't see who deleted the thread, but I'll ask the Moderators. 

This reply was deleted.