Because nobody has bothered to research your question, you assume a non-answer is an answer. Not a good assumption.

I wasn't making any assumption, but I should have put a paragraph break to separate the fact (no example yet offered) from my opinion (that fear of liability is misplaced). With no break, it looked like I was drawing a logical conclusion, if p then q, and I was not.

Thanks for digging up an example. That case is interesting but it specifically involved publishing libel, which is a crime but not usually an issue around here. And, the last paragraph of the link you provided:

In passing the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which, among other things, established immunity for internet service providers for publishing "information provided by another information content provider," 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), the House explicitly stated its intent to overturn the result reached in the Prodigy case. See H.R. Conf. Rep. 104-58, at 194.​

[emphasis added]

I'm still of the opinion that liability for forum content is a fake issue. Just look at the wild west nature you see in forums everywhere else, with no action taken against them.

 

I'm still of the opinion that liability for forum content is a fake issue. Just look at the wild west nature you see in forums everywhere else, with no action taken against them.

Well... I certainly think part of it is desired maintenance of an academic (as opposed to 'maintenance-bay'/'[vehicle of your choice] buff') environment --- Tho' I see nothing sinister in that?

Best regards
HP

 

Thanks for digging up an example. That case is interesting but it specifically involved publishing libel, which is a crime but not usually an issue around here. And, the last paragraph of the link you provided:

In passing the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which, among other things, established immunity for internet service providers for publishing "information provided by another information content provider," 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), the House explicitly stated its intent to overturn the result reached in the Prodigy case. See H.R. Conf. Rep. 104-58, at 194.​

[emphasis added]


I'm still of the opinion that liability for forum content is a fake issue. Just look at the wild west nature you see in forums everywhere else, with no action taken against them.

The Communications Decency Act protects service providers, which Prodigy was, and AAC is not. Thus, we must not believe ACC would be so protected.

 

I would say with reasonable confidence that no matter what we discussed on this site related to electronics or electrical stuff of any form and application in comparison to what other highly questionable websites do we are so far under the radar that I don't think that this site could draw enough negative attention to even get the powers that be to so much as raise a fuzzy eyebrow in this direction even if we tried.

Personally being that there are countless websites dedicated to the discussion and implementation of every single off limits topic we have here does more to make the reasoning for not discussing said topics here due to potential liability and safety look even more ridiculous and paranoid than anything else.

Even more so when the claim of liability for automotive and vehicular modifications is used when in fact most every automotive, vehicular, off road, industrial, agricultural and so on manufacturer has it's own forums where in fact threads discussing how to modify, hack, and redesign their very own products are open to everyone for the whole world to see and partake in.

 

I've seen people who were recommended to visit those other sites that provided such discussions. ETO seems to cross my mind that BM recommended within the last couple of months.

With the modifications to the Communications Act, who do you think becomes the liable "content provider."

Although the user agreement states someone using the information here will not hold AAC, the moderators, or the users responsible for whatever they do with the information, that may not hold up in a court of law.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/user-agreement/

Terms of service is at http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/help/terms

 

I have to disagree, based upon the following (IMO self-evident) assumptions:

1) The majority of the world's population resides in urban centers.
2) Most urban dwellers reside in multiple-family 'blocks'.
3) Inter-structure spacing is at a bare minimum in urban settings.
4) The principle electrical hazard to bystanders is fire.

Thus it is that a blase owed to misapplication of those 'two wires' may reasonably be expected to endanger many tens of lives (at least)

That said, It is not my aim to change the policy, howbeit I'm bound to say cooperation, and, hence, compliance is greatly enhanced via understanding as opposed to rote apprehension of fiat and 'heel clicking' compliance --- double so when said 'fiats' are ill defined!

Although I do not perceive a dictatorial manner in the behavior of the Mod/Admin staff there are certain members who appear hell-bent to cast them so... Why?

Respectfully
HP

Hence my initial disclaimer...

However, there are 4 requirements that you listed before those two wires are considered, by your position, hazardous to bystanders. On top of that, you need the correct missapropriation of electricity (incorrect gauging, high power, etc.). A 9V battery isn't going to do much, where a vehicle, in general, can.

For a vehicle it is simply a matter of someone else being nearby during a failure for them to be at risk of the vehicle's malfunction. Again, the remoteness of a catastrophic failure and the potential of a reasonable failure to do damage should play a factor.

 

this horse was already dead when the post started. Continuing to 'whip it' will not get it across the finish line

 

A lot of things in life are like that but we still continue on anyway.

 

Hence my initial disclaimer...

However, there are 4 requirements that you listed before those two wires are considered, by your position, hazardous to bystanders. On top of that, you need the correct missapropriation of electricity (incorrect gauging, high power, etc.). A 9V battery isn't going to do much, where a vehicle, in general, can.

For a vehicle it is simply a matter of someone else being nearby during a failure for them to be at risk of the vehicle's malfunction. Again, the remoteness of a catastrophic failure and the potential of a reasonable failure to do damage should play a factor.

Not four 'requirements' but, rather, four assertions as to the probable environs, and, hence, actual nature of the hazard -- sans perceived amelioration or enhancement (via cognitive bias)...

But to the point:

Electrical fires tend to 'establish themselves' prior to detection (hence the potential for large scale asphyxiation and 'entrapment') - whereas mechanical hazards tend to 'run their course' (NPI) within the 'space' of a few seconds - thus limiting the 'body count' as it were...

While I agree that a typical 9v battery operated circuit is unlikely to prove an ignition source (with the exceptions of ESC chargers, certain lasers, low current EHT devices, etc...) It is my observation that many (I daresay most) circuits discussed on these fora are powered via line-connected PSUs or high current battery-sources --- to say nothing of the hazards attendant to overloading several popular battery chemistries...

In the interest of amity perhaps we should agree to disagree?

Again, I'm not arguing for a rule change! I am merely expressing the opinion that liability need not be the sole legitimate motive for the restriction...

Best regards
HP

 

But to the point:

Electrical fires tend to 'establish themselves' prior to detection (hence the potential for large scale asphyxiation and 'entrapment') - whereas mechanical hazards tend to 'run their course' (NPI) within the 'space' of a few seconds - thus limiting the 'body count' as it were...

While I agree that a typical 9v battery operated circuit is unlikely to prove an ignition source (with the exceptions of ESC chargers, certain lasers, low current EHT devices, etc...) It is my observation that many (I daresay most) circuits discussed on these fora are powered via line-connected PSUs or high current battery-sources --- to say nothing of the hazards attendant to overloading several popular battery chemistries...

That's been my whole point in this. The potential to happen does not mean it will happen. For me to say we shouldn't talk about such and such circuits because they have the potential to do harm is about as realistic as saying we shouldn't swim in the ocean because there is the potential for a shark attack or we shouldn't go outside when it cloudy because there is a potential to get struck by lightning.

Sure there is potential in each but realistically the likelihood of either happening is incredibly small.

For a more realistic look at your odds are of dieing from most anything in the USA have a look here.

http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_odds.htm

Odds of dying from electrocution. ~1:657,000. Odds do dying due to advice found on AAC, 1 : 1,000,000,000+ being so far I am not aware that anyone has died specifically from advice they got on this website in it's history.

 

That's been my whole point in this. The potential to happen does not mean it will happen. For me to say we shouldn't talk about such and such circuits because they have the potential to do harm is about as realistic as saying we shouldn't swim in the ocean because there is the potential for a shark attack or we shouldn't go outside when it cloudy because there is a potential to get struck by lightning.

Sure there is potential in each but realistically the likelihood of either happening is incredibly small.

For a more realistic look at your odds are of dieing from most anything in the USA have a look here.

http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_odds.htm

Odds of dying from electrocution. ~1:657,000. Odds do dying due to advice found on AAC, 1 : 1,000,000,000+ being so far I am not aware that anyone has died specifically from advice they got on this website in it's history.

Again, FWIW, My 'take' on the 'automotive topics' restriction holds that it is (in large part) an attempt to maintain an academic, as opposed to, 'shop'/'club' environment. One need only consider the decline of 'tone' seen on many (all?) Usenet electronics fora following what amounted to ceding of same to the ARRL and AOPA (which being advocacy groups for Amateur Radio and General Aviation, respectively) --- Please don't get me wrong! Advocacy organizations are vital resources for 'private individuals' in the face of (often draconian) governmental regulation/would-be usurpation - and, in point of fact, I am a longtime member of both aforementioned organizations! --- My point is merely that the automotive, and indeed, vehicular, 'scenes' in general, are unique in that they enjoy very large 'followings' and, hence, are likely to 'swamp' the fora - creating a 'club-like' environment --- While, in principal, a dedicated forum could be created to accommodate said interests - it seems such focus may, indeed, entail some degree of liability?

So... In short (I know! - 'Tis a bit late for that!) --- I believe the principle rationale for the restriction owes to a (IMO well reasoned) concern for content, as opposed to liability alone....

Best regards
HP

 

Perhaps but that clearly has not been the case with most every other electronics or such forum on the internet.

As I have said many times I agree with AAC not wanting to discus outright hacks and modifications to automotive vehicles and that's fine with me.

What I and apparently a lot of others do not get is the recent lumping in of anything that is self propelled in any form to be considered an automobile and anything that can plug into a factory supplied power port or power connection point or that repurposes an automotive component for something else in or from a vehicle to be a automotive modification with a high potential to kill people.

 

What I and apparently a lot of others do not get is the recent lumping in of anything that is self propelled in any form to be considered an automobile and anything that can plug into a factory supplied power port or power connection point or that repurposes an automotive component for something else in or from a vehicle to be a automotive modification with a high potential to kill people.

Being rather new to this site (3 Months) I'm at a disadvantage on that one --- Is it possible it owes to suspicion of posters attempting to circumvent the TOS via. duplicitous 'refocus' of context (e.g. dubious inquiries about ostensibly re-purposed automotive equipment)? --- Just a guess, as stated I haven't 'been here' long enough to form an informed opinion/hypothesis...

Best regards
HP

 

Regarding repurposed automotive parts I see that as a fairly benign concept. Many components and sensors used in vehicles are great for other non vehicular applications.

Alternators being repurposed to use on other machinery or AE/ backup power applications is something I do a lot of myself.

Many of the sensors used in modern fuel injection are very useful for non automotive applications where similar conditions are needing monitoring. MAP, MAS, O2, Tachometer, Pressure, Temperature, and so forth.
Other components like electric motors, starters, fans, ignition, relays, wiring harness connectors, control module guts, fuel injectors and lighting components are also commonly repurposable items as well.

 

Regarding repurposed automotive parts I see that as a fairly benign concept.

Indeed, I agree! -- My point was that a poster could inquire into a 'genuinely automotive' subject under the false pretense that the part/system in question was repurposed --- A 'sticky wicket' indeed for the mods sans recourse to clairvoyance... Hence my guess as to the motivation 'back of' the wide-reaching restriction...
Apologies for my previous post's lack of clarity

Best regards
HP

 

So, the mods are now considering whether repair of a snow blower engine is an automotive modification...

 

Depends on the end use.

 

I´d love to see that debate.
- Is a snow blower an automobile?
- How the heck should I know. Is a cart being pushed by a human an automobile?
- Could be, but it also could be an airplane, if it uses a jet engine to blow the snow..

Jeez I think this is going too far.
Too bad we don´t have a dislike button.
Why not say that anything with wheels or similar structures is off limits and be done with it?

 

I´d love to see that debate.
- Is it a snow blower an automobile?
- How the heck should I know. Is a cart being pushed by a human an automobile?
- Could be, but it also could be an airplane, if it uses a jet engine to blow the snow..

Jeez I think this is going too far.
Too bad we don´t have a dislike button.

I suppose it could be a snow-blower engine running a generator in a hybrid gas/electric automobile. But if the OP does not say so, why would anyone care?

 

So, this is the standard now.

Note to mods: asking for a clarification or a photo is, simply, ridiculous. This is the internet, for Pete's sake! They can post anything in response, and you'll be none the wiser.

I am now going to prove that I am a moderator. Here's my photo: