Warning - do not buy Voyager

Arun H · Oct 12, 2025 at 08:43 PM

John Hayes:
don’t know how close to the line the OP may have come but I wouldn’t bet that a motivated attorney couldn’t turn it in to something. Turning a personal grudge into an attack on someone’s business is not how a product review should be done and that’s what this looks like to me.

Hi John - I don't disagree that this could have been done a lot better. At the end of the day, in a small community, it is undeniably the case that someone that thinks they have suffered damage can attempt to take legal steps. Even if what has been written is protected free speech, the work to defend against a lawsuit would, at a minimum, incur time and expense, even in cases where such expenses may be recovered if the lawsuit is found to be without merit. So it is good advice to be more careful online and be less emotional and more fact based. 

I disagree with some of the other points you made about free speech - there is danger in suppressing speech merely because, in the eyes of a segment of people it does not add to rational discourse. But that's a topic for another day. Also, as far as I know, there was no libel involved in the CN case - it was a criminal matter.

Hi Arun,

I want to put this thread aside and get back to talking about telescopes and imaging but before I do, I want to make sure that you (and others who have referenced this issue) clearly understand what is meant by “protected free speech.” Protected free speech in the US is the constitutional right to express opinions and ideas without government censorship or punishment. That is not the same as having a right to post anything you like on a private web forum that is protected from all consequences. It is perfectly legal for your posts to be removed or edited and if you don’t like it, your only remedy is to not use the service. That’s actually why I left CN. The constitutional free speech protections also do not provide a shield from legal consequences that might arise from whatever you might post. Free speech protections only prevent the government from censoring your posts or punishing you for what you say. As I said, it’s not about free speech, it’s about sensible speech.

John

John Hayes:
Protected free speech in the US is the constitutional right to express opinions and ideas without government censorshipor punishment. That is not the same as having a right to post anything you like on a private web forum that is protected from all consequences. It is perfectly legal for your posts to be removed or edited and if you don’t like it, your only remedy is to not use the service. That’s actually why I left CN. The constitutional free speech protections also do not provide a shield from legal consequences that might arise from whatever you might post.

I highly doubt that the OP posted this because he didnt get his way. Id bet a cup of coffee that he started this thread because of the way he was treated, as a customer and as a human being.

This thread, is absolutely a review on his experience with the vendor, even if it was not eloquently presented.

I could be wrong, and maybe the motivation was something else but id double down on that cup of coffee that if the customer here was treated with respect, even with the same outcome (not getting a license activation), that this thread would not exist.

Bill McLaughlin:
I am sure this is true in every field so all reviews need to be taken with a large degree of skepticism and only if you see a very skewed and very large set of bad (or good) reviews by well qualified people should one draw any conclusions.

Arun H · Oct 12, 2025 at 10:19 PM

John Hayes:
Protected free speech in the US is the constitutional right to express opinions and ideas without government censorshipor punishment. That is not the same as having a right to post anything you like on a private web forum that is protected from all consequences. It is perfectly legal for your posts to be removed or edited and if you don’t like it, your only remedy is to not use the service. That’s actually why I left CN. The constitutional free speech protections also do not provide a shield from legal consequences that might arise from whatever you might post.

Hi John  - this is correct. However, in the context of online reviews etc., the First Amendment comes into play because the person/business seeking to have the review removed or suing for damages is asking for governmental action (a court order etc.). So generally, there is a heavier burden of proof on the part of the litigator to prove actual harm and negligence and actual falsehood (not merely incomplete facts) on the part of the reviewer, which is why Amazon reviews like the below are quite common and the posters are not sued:



A business could argue that it suffered damages (It seems to have lost seven customers on account of this review); the review is very probably missing a lot of very relevant facts that are germane to why the device didn't work, and probably many more facts than the OP left out in his post. But generally, the burden of proof is higher, otherwise you'd see a lot more reviews like the above taken down and a lot more people getting sued. Also, the posting sites (Google, AB in this case, Yelp etc.) would be protected by the Communications Decency Act. 

That said, as you note, nothing is absolute. There are governmental restrictions on speech even in the very permissive US. Employers can certainly impose communication standards in the workplace - you cannot abuse your boss via email or in person and claim First Amendment Protections when you are fired! In most cases, you cannot disparage them in public and expect to keep your job. As we have seen, in the US, many people lost their jobs on account of what they posted on social media about various recent events. And of course, websites are private parties that can impose standards of conduct. Astrobin itself has its standards:

https://welcome.astrobin.com/community-guidelines

There are far larger concerns with this post, than the First Amendment of the US. The business in question, is from the EU, thus GDPR applies to the correspondence that was shared (which without permission of the sender is NEVER a good idea).

Here are the GDPR concerns:

• Unlawful disclosure of personal data (the name of the author of Voyager)

• Failure to minimize (removing the author’s name and verbatim text)

• Important: Astrobin can receive an Article 17 request to remove the portions of the post that violate GDPR.

Here is an EU concern not related to GDPR:

• Defamation violation without factual evidence (many, many reports is not factual on its own)

Here is the US law concern:

• Defamation / Libel for a false statement of fact, published to a third party, with negligence and malicious intent, with the desired outcome being harm to Voyager.

The Communications Decency Act does not protect for sharing of personal data, nor does it allow one to side-step GDPR in any way. John Hayes was right to call out the Libel concerns, as the US First Amendment does not allow one to do what I listed out in the bullet above and be protected in doing so.

But, that is not the biggest problem with this discussion at all. The GDPR violation is and should be remediated by the moderators.

Arun H · Oct 15, 2025 at 02:18 PM

Dark Matters Astrophotography:
Here is the US law concern:

Defamation / Libel for a false statement of fact, published to a third party, with negligence and malicious intent, with the desired outcome being harm to Voyager.

Respectfully, this is incorrect. There are many, many legal definitions of what constitutes libel and what does not. If you think this constitutes libel in the US, I challenge you to get a lawyer's opinion to prove it. I'm going to bet a couple cups of coffee that no reputable lawyer is going to take up a case of libel on the basis of the first post, in the US. There are literally millions of reviews of this type. 

As far as which law applies, that should be disclosed in the terms of sale. It is illegal in the US for a vendor to force non disclosure of an experience on a consumer. That is literally in the Communications Decency Act. 

From what I can tell, there seems to be an effort to suppress honest discussion on certain topics and it really is up to Sal to decide. He runs the website, he can get a legal opinion on European law or US law if he so chooses. As to the disclosure of the name of the developer - it is hardly a secret. Hundreds of publicly available posts exist. There are similar posts on CN as what the OP shared, and CN is run by Astronomics that I presume does have a legal department.

Defamation / Libel for a false statement of fact, published to a third party, with negligence and malicious intent, with the desired outcome being harm to Voyager.

Lets break this down:

1. The OP contains a false statement of fact. Specifically this: “There are many, many reports online about the behavior of the developer”

2. Published to a third party is true, clearly, as that would be here on Astrobin.

3. Negligence and malicious intent: This would be true as well. The OP was negligent on two counts: sharing the personal information of the author of the correspondence and sharing verbatim statements (these are not allowed via GDPR). Malicious intent is clear from the title “Warning - do not buy Voyager”.

4. Desired outcome clear from the post content and the thread title, that the intent of this is to do harm to Voyager specifically.

Your challenge for me to go find a lawyer to take on this hypothetical case is silly to even suggest to someone simply weighing in on where the post was murky in terms of it even being legal to post (it isn’t). You do not get to pick and choose which laws and regulations apply based on the ones you are familiar with, Arun, nor is it intellectually acceptable to completely remove any of the discussion I made about my key point (GDPR violations). Whether or not his name is “known” is not relevant to this post and the content shared in it. He has a right to his privacy under GDPR and his name and verbatims are protected by that regulation no matter how you want to wave your hands around, cut out pertinent details shared by people like me, or otherwise throw around irrelevant red herrings like content on CN (which has nothing to do with this post or site at all).

Astrobin does not get to pick and choose when it comes to protected information in the EU. GDPR is strict and extremely clear about what constitutes a privacy violation and the content of the OP most definitely violates that. If the author of Voyager contacted Astrobin with an Article 17 erasure request Astrobin would be required to honor that.

You should work more on factual bits, than from what you can “tell” is going on. I am not trying to suppress anything, and would be more than happy to engage in a fact based discussion about the merits of the software mentioned here as we use it on all of our systems and have had a great experience with it.

What is not cool, is people violating privacy laws to slander and libel products and people in the process of sharing experiences. I think everyone here can agree that there is a far better way to approach this situation than what has transpired here.

Arun H · Oct 15, 2025 at 02:57 PM

Hi Bill,

I'll respond further if and when you get an actual legal opinion on the matter.

Otherwise, in the US, reviews like this, as long as what is revealed is factual, are protected free speech. Of course, that does not stop someone from suing someone else strategically (SLAPP), even when the case has no merit. That's why 38 states have anti SLAPP laws here. But there would be a significant burden on the litigator to prove that what was shared was objectively false (not merely incomplete), had malicious intent, and caused measurable harm. These are high hurdles to cross. 

As far as the privacy matter involved in revealing the name of a person whose name is already quite well known - sure, if you say so. 

What I do think is good advice is for Sal, as owner of the website, to get a legal opinion on his own exposure under various laws. But that is advice anyone running a business should follow and I presume he has already done so. Of course, legal matters aside, he can still decide to set his own rules for the website. 

For now, I'm done with this discussion, and you can have the last post on the matter if you would like.

I am not sure where you got the idea that I am going to go obtain the opinion of a bar certified lawyer on an internet post. It is actually absurd for you to suggest/demand that when you had absolutely no problem waving the First Amendment and Decency Act around at will, and in your new post here you have pulled out SLAPP — all without the “actual legal opinion” you have placed on others.

Do you plan to meet the bar you seem to set for others? I highly doubt it as you continue to make legal claims even in your latest post — without doing any of what you are purporting others do from a legal standpoint. There is a term for what you are doing, but I will refrain from sharing that.

Anti-SLAPP has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on GDPR violations and the OP is in Vermont, which has narrowly defined SLAPP laws specific to government petitions, which has no relevance here. You seem to be throwing legal noodles at the wall hoping one sticks — which is not advisable.

I explained the merit of the libel claim, I agree with John Hayes’ stance that libel is a valid concern in this thread, and shared GDPR insights that would help support John’s claims and also help to show that the OP was indeed a privacy violation that was uncalled for and should be edited to rectify.

drmikevt · Oct 10, 2025, 03:09 PM

Leo: Stop insulting me, otherwise I'll protect myself in another way. I don't owe you anything, the support has ended, and you can continue to use the license for as many years and millennia as you want on the PCs on which it is installed in the version you installed. The rest is support and is your responsibility. Stop writing things that aren't true and behave civilly.

Does this sound like how you’d like to be treated as a customer?

LOL. I stopped being his customer a long time ago and so should you.

Thank you for sharing your experience

At last someone who has spoken some sense and shut up all the idiots shouting about libel and such like, talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

@Salvatore Iovene I think we should consider closing this before things get too heated and too far out of hand. The back and forth discussion can be good but I feel we keep venturing further off topic.