Why are forum rules not in line with blog posts?

[N4Newbie]

So, we used to say this:

​

https://forums.androidcentral.com/e...97.2089490823.1512740447-319898571.1501684674

​

But, now we say this?

https://www.androidcentral.com/how-get-free-mobile-hotspot-your-android-phone​

I'm confused.

 

[B. Diddy]

Re: Ummm...

Hmm, good point. We'll discuss this with our Community Manager.

 

[Aquila]

Re: Ummm...

The rules in the forums and the blog have been in disagreement on many issues before. Examples are discussion of pornography which the blog allows and the forms do not and the use of language and some trolling behaviors is more forgiving on the blog that in the forums, etc. My first instinct would be to look at this in the exact same manner in which the blog is going to do whatever they do and that does not impact the rules of the Forum.

 

[N4Newbie]

Re: Ummm...

The rules in the forums and the blog have been in disagreement on many issues before. Examples are discussion of pornography which the blog allows and the forms do not and the use of language and some trolling behaviors is more forgiving on the blog that in the forums, etc. My first instinct would be to look at this in the exact same manner in which the blog is going to do whatever they do and that does not impact the rules of the Forum.

Yeah, I get it.

But, pornography is not, in and of itself, illegal. Whereas, I suspect that any attempt to bypass a carrier's legitimate business practice - or to openly assist someone else in doing so - is probably a direct violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act).

I think this is a case where the forum policy is correct and the blog post is potentially a time-bomb.

 

[mobrules]

This is confusing as hell to most of the general forum readers. I casually surf the forums and "that what shall not be named" has always been taboo. So seeing that article was a little confusing.

 

[dpham00]

Re: Ummm...

Yeah, I get it.

But, pornography is not, in and of itself, illegal. Whereas, I suspect that any attempt to bypass a carrier's legitimate business practice - or to openly assist someone else in doing so - is probably a direct violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act).

I think this is a case where the forum policy is correct and the blog post is potentially a time-bomb.

At least for my carrier, it isn't. They were in fact fined by the United States government for blocking tethering apps a few years ago.

It is still probably a violation of terms of service, but they can't enforce a term that contradicts a United States law.

It's also important to note that my carrier has 700mhz upper block C spectrum which has unique terms.

 

[Aquila]

For now I'd say that the safest assumption would be that the forum rules have not yet changed and that this topic would still fall under the illegal activities section of the forum rules. If that does change then @Almeuit will update the moderator teams and probably make an amendment to this post: https://forums.androidcentral.com/g...tethering-foxfi-pdanet-etc-carrier-plans.html As indicated in this post, the issue is one of attempting to get paid services without paying for them, and is looked at in the same way as we would view not paying for apps or movies, etc.

 

[N4Newbie]

Re: Ummm...

At least for my carrier, it isn't. They were in fact fined by the United States government for blocking tethering apps a few years ago.

Even if accurate, I think that is an apples vs. oranges kind of thing.

Deliberately hacking a computer system (a term that includes smartphones) is a violation of federal law, even if the net result gets you to a place that you could have gotten to by other means.

And, while your carrier may have been fined - no doubt based on the totality of their user contract and advertising - that doesn't mean that other carriers are not within their rights to limit or outright block tethering.