Welcome to SU & SU Meta. The Meta site focuses on how the main site works and appropriate ways to do stuff on the main site. Seth's question here is about the appropriate way to handle a post containing potentially dangerous links (from the perspective of community moderation), rather than the technical issue of how to use such links safely (i.e., how or whether to modify the original post to protect unwitting readers). But glad you're taking an active interest in the site and volunteering your time to help others. Keep it up (you'll pick up the site culture). :-)

@Albin, see, your instincts were right.

Current scores on answers: highest rep user: 0, Albin: 3. Draw your own conclusion. :-)

Your source of confusion is suddenly clear. Web apps aren't hosted in the browser, they're hosted on an online server somewhere. They're an online service that acts like an app. The browser is just the mechanism to interact with it. If the app is actually an add-on installed in the browser, it's on-topic. Most of the common web apps (account for most of the questions, like Google Spreadsheet), people are simply familiar with. There are also a few popular browser add-ons that people may be familiar with. Questions about unfamiliar apps may require a quick Google search to identify what it is.

If you don't think the rules have been clearly defined, you can push for better clarification, like you did here. Hopefully, the community can provide an adequate, consistent explanation. But until the community is able to provide clarification that meets your needs, you can choose to not invest your time on questions you're not comfortable evaluating, which is a responsible course of action and good use of your own time.

Keep in mind that what is on-topic is what the community says is on-topic. That's part of the benefit of rules that are not rigidly defined. You, as an experienced site user, are expected to apply your judgment as to what is a good fit for the site. If enough community members agree with you, that's how the question is handled. If you don't have an opinion on a specific question, you're not obligated to pick a side; you can just skip that question. (cont'd)

But actually changing the policy requires a formal process. So the policy is what it is until it is formally changed. It may not be understandable in detail without research into the past discussions, or a Meta question seeking clarification. So in a case like this question, users will volunteer clarification. You can assess the accuracy of the clarification by the community response. Users who disagree post other answers or comments, and people vote. You weigh "the totality of the evidence". If it still seems to reflect conflicting interpretations, you can post a new, more refined question.

So policy isn't really just community consensus (which could change every time the wind changes direction). The Meta discussions on specific questions help provide the more detailed guidance on interpretation, especially if answered by a moderator, or an answer receives overwhelming approval with little disagreement. Meta discussions on policy provide information on how the community feels about the policy at a given time, and shares the different perspectives. (cont'd)

If the discussion makes clear that the community consensus is that the policy should change, and change in a way that is still consistent with the site's basic "foundation", it may lead to a change in policy. That change could range from informal agreement to interpret the rules in a different way, for a minor change, to formal change in the policy and guidance, which I assume must be coordinated through SE. Occasionally, an event like launching a new SE site that is focused on a chunk of previous SU content may trigger re-evaluation of how to handle those questions here. (cont'd)

@jww, I thinks it's more the case that we start with the very general guidance in the help section, various canonical discussions on philosophy and policy, and an existing site culture based on historical practices. The moderators are long-time users who have demonstrated an understanding of the site policies and culture, and generally keep the site moving in the intended direction. Every so often, someone raises a Meta question about some policy that attracts a lot of participation and discussion of alternative views. (cont'd)

Until it's closed, you can't be sure it's off-topic. The highest rep user seems to think it's not off-topic. If it remains open, it's an opportunity to help (and have a shot at the bounty), and an answer can always be deleted. So why not answer? OK, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :-)

Off-topic may be in the eye of the beholder. However, you posted this question here, so clearly, you do think it's off-topic. And yet you posted an answer, too. Just sayin'. (isn't there some expression about glass houses or pots and kettles, or something?) :-)

1. I agree. This seems like more of a legal or business question. 2. I can't believe the OP put up a bounty to get an answer.