I'm glad you asked, since apparently I wasn't clear in my previous post.
Firstly, only apps that download AND run code were not allowed, now apps that download OR run code are not allowed
That's inconsistent over time, not necessarily a bad thing, though it was a change made quietly which is a bit of a poor show.
On top of that there are still lots of apps, games mainly, running interpreters. That's also inconsistent, on a completely different axis.
So yes they are meeting the letter of the (current) law in the banning of this particular case, but "consistent" is not a word I would leap to using in this case. The simple fact that they're kicking out an app that was already in, rather than blocking entry in the first place, makes it a strange word choice.
Firstly, only apps that download AND run code were not allowed, now apps that download OR run code are not allowed
That's inconsistent over time, not necessarily a bad thing, though it was a change made quietly which is a bit of a poor show.
On top of that there are still lots of apps, games mainly, running interpreters. That's also inconsistent, on a completely different axis.
So yes they are meeting the letter of the (current) law in the banning of this particular case, but "consistent" is not a word I would leap to using in this case. The simple fact that they're kicking out an app that was already in, rather than blocking entry in the first place, makes it a strange word choice.