A question about the tos, in relation to

[reACTIONary]

.... Alerting on a post. I thought advocating violence, such as calling for the "extermination" of our political opponents, is against the tos. No maybe I'm being too much of a internet lawyer here, but the tos does not explicitly prohibit this. If I want to alert against such a post, which category do I select? Or is advocating violence OK here as long as it is not directed towards Democrats?

[CurtEastPoint]

1. here ya go

Don't post anything that violates U.S. law
Don't post anything that violates U.S. law -- including but not limited to: linking to illegally-shared files, attempting to organize hacking or DOS attacks, sales of weapons, alcohol, illegal drugs, or other illegal products, etc.

[reACTIONary]

6. Thanks for the suggestion! nt

[Yonnie3]

2. I believe "No kooky, extremist, or hate content" fits

Do not promote ridiculous, bigoted, or extreme-fringe conspiracy theories. Do not promote extreme fringe views. Do not reference hate sites or other extremist/fringe sources.

Why we have this rule: Democrats are supposed to be part of the "reality-based community." Some amount of skepticism toward powerful institutions is healthy and appropriate, but that doesn't mean every paranoid fantasy is true. Posts about mass shootings being "false flag" operations, 9/11 being a controlled demolition, no airplane at the Pentagon, chemtrails, black helicopters, the Illuminati, or other nonsense make us all look like fools. This website may have the word "underground" in our name, but we are not extreme fringe.

I think that extermination is an extreme fringe view.

[reACTIONary]

5. Thanks for the suggestion! nt

[hlthe2b]

3. Most seem to use the "No kooky, extremist, or hate content" rule, I think

As an aside, people often make a hyperbolic comment of this sort, but without a emoji or some other indication that they are not serious, but only venting, yes, it can be alerted.

[reACTIONary]

4. Thanks....

... for the suggestion. I understand the need for venting, and I'm generally willing to let it go. (I'm a liberal, after all.) However, some of the posts I've seen lately are just a bit too genuine and authentic to ignore.

[Rhiannon12866]

7. Back on DU.2, "advocating violence towards a public figure" was a specific rule

Including Dick Cheney, etc. Here on DU.3 it's up to a jury, but I agree that it's pretty well spelled out in the alert choices - and "hate content" would work since it would be inappropriate to advocate violence or explicitly call for the death of anyone.

[reACTIONary]

8. Thanks! I thought I had seen...

...it explicitly stated in the tos before, and then I couldn't find it. At least I now know I hadn't miss-un-remembered.