A number of brand new accounts have popped up shilling their paid for applications.
Is this within the rules? Is the community happy with this? Could mods clarify this in the rules?
Either allowing advertising, or banning it entirely.
IMO, if you have some sort of posting/commenting history, and you’re talking about a paid service that you happen to like, then no problem. If you’re brand new and just posting to promote something, nah.
Technically Plex is a paid closed source but self hosted thingy. I think the line is a bit blurry on this since I wouldn’t mind people posting about Plex even though I use Jellyfin. However, advertising it would be a nono.
Yeah, you still have full control of your local Plex install (for now). I don’t mind it, but I would advise against it for new users. It is on the enshittification road
I think new accounts that show up to shil their app should be banned. They’re not actively participating in the community, it’s just spam. There’s been a huge uptick recently.
I think new accounts that show up to shil their app should be banned.
What if the new account user, who is working on a product that integrates with what the vast majority of selfhosters run, just found Lemmy? Lemmy selfhosted doesn’t exactly share the same popularity as say Reddit. It doesn’t just roll off the tongue. I had to vigorously try to find Lemmy before I got here.
are they charging? is it open source?
They aren’t charging you. The OP/DEV in question is willing to give their product away. A product that integrates with your opensource *arr stack. All he wanted to know is, 'Would you be interested in beta testing it?"
I mean, there was recently a new user here who intro’d himself as a Windows selfhoster. He was pretty much welcomed with open arms, with a few snarky remarks, but welcomed. How much more closed source could you get than Microsoft Windows? What’s is the actual difference here?
Lmao, the OP you’re talking about literally said that “It’s a paid closed source app”. Why are you not mentioning that little tidbid?
“It’s a paid closed source app”. Why are you not mentioning that little tidbid?
I assumed everyone has a decent reading skills?
that is incredibly misleading.
its not someone asking advice about a closed source app. its someone shilling their own paid for product.
why are you ok with advertising for paid for products being shoved down your throat?
they arent “willing to give it away”. theyre willing to give it to testers for free labour to test their paid for app.
why are you ok with advertising for paid for products being shoved down your throat?
No one, not one living soul that has graced the halls of Lemmy selfhosted since I’ve been here has shoved anything down anyone’s throat. Are you not master of your own domain? Do you not possess self control? Additionally, I chart my own course. I don’t let hive mind tell me what I can and can’t selfhost or use in relation to my server.
they arent “willing to give it away”. theyre willing to give it to testers for free labour to test their paid for app.
So, to recap, they’re going to give their app, which is closed source but integrates with what most selfhosters host, to beta testers, who are interested, and in return, the beta testers get to keep the app for free. I see no free labor.
It was said when rule 3 was being discussed, that there are so few selfhosters out here, why gatekeep?
Yes, but all of your comments seem to miss the fact that this post is talking about paid software. Which is what the OP you’re talking about and defending did. You also said “they aren’t charging you”, which might be true for now, but they will make money off of beta tester’s free labor.
but they will make money off of beta tester’s free labor.
That’s exactly how beta testing works. I’ve mentioned, I do a lot of beta testing for BetaBound. I’m currently beta testing a rumba floor sweeper knock off. WHen I’m done, the company says ‘thank you’ by letting me keep the rather pricey product. Are they going to make money? Of course they will. That’s why they started business…to make money.
You can start with timed bans, so they get the point
What if the new account user, who is working on a product that integrates with what the vast majority of selfhosters run, just found Lemmy?
This happens on Reddit, and basically my problem is that these users often don’t have enough experience to be able to actually give solutions. Reddit is full of people who think they have a good solution, dealing with comments of people explaining that what they are struggling with is actually a solved problem (or a skill issue). No one cares about your vibecoded slop that implements 1% of the features of an existing open source solution (they used to not be vibecoded but we still didn’t care). It being paid and proprietary is just even more annoying.
My idea of requirement to engage with the community is also about being able to ensure that the users are technically competent. If they are experienced, it will show up in the discussions we can see and review. For their benefit, if they lurk, then they can take a look at what is being used, and what problems actually exist, instead of making assumptions.
If they really believe their product is so good, they can spend a few weeks helping people with Linux questions and sharing their (non product related) insightful thoughts on Lemmy so I don’t dismiss them instantly when they finally advertise it.
If all they have to contribute is self promotion I think they should be banned.
“Lurk for a while before posting,” has been a standard rule of netiquette for at least the 30 years that I’ve been using the 'net.
I would tend to agree with that. Maybe OP didn’t think of that.
They did think about that, apparently you did not. Did you not see that they specifically said “brand new” accounts? Or are you talking about the most recent OP that posted an ad to beta test PAID closed source software?
They should hang out a while first and not have only posts promoting their software, and not only have comments in those threads.
The lemmy attitude is very anti commercialization, and they don’t know any better. That doesn’t mean we should allow it.
They should hang out a while first and not have only posts promoting their software, and not only have comments in those threads.
I tend to agree.
The lemmy attitude is very anti commercialization
The lemmy attitude is like chaff in the wind.
That sounds like you’re describing someone who is only making a lemmy account because they see potential customers they want to advertise to.
That’s the exact reason I don’t want someone to make a lemmy account.
This has gotten a ton of votes, and I’m in agreement that new accounts that have only posted about their paid app should be considered spam, and I would say a timed ban (maybe a week?) would be a good start.
Now what about open source vs paid? Devs who made something may just think “oh I should share it on selfhosted!” On their freshly made fediverse account. Does open source get the same treatment? I’d lean toward no, but some of these projects have a paid component as well - paid hosting, or a license upgrade, or whatever.
I think its fine that they want to make some money, and I’m personally more positive toward a hosted option than a paywall, but its a finer point to navigate than just “paid vs open”.
That said, I do see a problem with comments on some posts as well - a reply with “spam” and no report is not helpful. The comment itself isnt helpful. A downvote and report is.
So I think a clear and concise set of rules would be helpful, and maybe with a separate list for fully open source and no paid component, open with a paid component, and a fully closed (paid or not, because we all know where the profit comes from in this scenario).
I’d personally lean toward something like an account xx days old to be able to self-promote, and tags for each type of post.
Personally I’m fine with paid apps here, lots of people use tailscale for example. I think the larger issue is the drive-by spamming without contributing outside of their own promotion thread.
I like the comment elsewhere in this thread referencing a subreddit that requires X comments over Y days in the community first.
N of one, but:
- Paid closed source = Advertisement, ban.
- FOSS without free self hosting = Advertisement, ban.
- FOSS with self-hosting but some self-hosted features are paid = Still an advertisement, but MAYBE acceptable if we are being lenient. I don’t like it, personally.
- FOSS with free self-hosting and paid hosted services = Good for them, play on.
Edit: @Shadow@lemmy.ca had a comment about Tailscale, it’s a prime example of the last bullet.
There is a sticky up with the currently proposed rule.
Paid closed source or f/loss with a paywall requires active (non-advertising) participation.
f/loss that can be hosted and used fully without a paywall (even if they offer their own cloud option, or a donation subscription, whatever) is exempt.
Oh that sounds spot on. Thanks.
At it’s heart, this is what @selfhosted is meant for:
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don’t control.
I would say that members talking about paid/closed products they use (ex. “I connect to this via Tailscale” or “I use company ABC for hosted VPS”) to accomplish something is fine, but marketing or job boarding (ex. “Looking for QA on my commercial product”) is not.
While I’m fine with people wanting to self-host stuff with closed software (this includes Windows and Plex, btw), I personally am not interested in having ads of any kind in the community.
To me self hosting is about controlling your data. While I wouldn’t use proprietary software myself for this, I just want to make it clear that I’m fine with people asking for help it advice about it. Just not ads, of any kind.
Where do you draw the line? If a user who is generally a very active poster here wrote a useful program and hosted the source on Codeberg under a FOSS license, should they be allowed to make a post sharing it?
For me personally an ad is when I’m being sold something. I can’t be sold something that is free and open. So someone showcasing their paid (but self hosted) service is an ad. Someone telling me about their (open) project is not.
And when someone wants to use either and asks for help, is also (obviously) not an ad. Unless we see a flood of accounts posting trivial questions about a paid service to draw attention to it, but I kinda doubt it.
I can’t be sold something that is free and open.
There’s lot of paid FOSS stuff.
No. They should not be allowed, especially the closed source, non-FOSS ones. It’d be one thing to have a FOSS application that has a premium option (such as Frigate), but if it’s closed source and you have to pay, they shouldn’t be in the self hosting community.
Even if you change the ROM in your Android phone, guess what? The ROM still relies on closed-source vendor blobs from the manufacturer that come with the stock firmware and most often are required to make your ROM do what it do. I would say that the vast majority of people screaming about closed source and how they own their own data, yadda yadda, yadda, when it gets right down to the brass tacks, somewhere, they rely on something that is not FOSS. It’s a rather duplicitous diatribe.
This logic is not great. I’d rather have something mostly open source (where I can check what blobs it’s actually using) rather than something completely closed where I have no idea what’s under the hood. It’s not about concessions, it’s about being able to tell what the hell software is actually doing.
I’d rather have something mostly open source (where I can check what blobs it’s actually using) rather than something completely closed where I have no idea what’s under the hood
Mee2! However, not everyone here is of a hive mind. Not everyone here got into selfhosting for the same reasons. Like I’ve mentioned, it’s a big umbrella.
That’s not the question that was asked.
The question is if brand new accounts should be able to shill their PAID closed source products without otherwise contributing to the community. They should not be able to do so.
Huh?
So, if we have the choice of something 90% open and 10% closed, versus 100% closed, you’re saying the first option is invalid to even desire, because it isn’t 100% open.
Wow. Just, wow.
So, let me be exactly clear here: WE ALL MAKE CONCESSIONS.
Apparently, some of us are okay making 100% concessions and not giving a shit at all.
Yeah. Selfhosting is a very large umbrella.
Advertised? I’d vote no. Discussed? I’m all for it.
Eh, that may just promote a lot of “What are your opinions about x” posts where the first comment is the ad. Suppose it’s an open call to list alternatives though.
Should be a mod decision, but posters should be community participants/contributors.
Just going to say that to me its a community decision. I’m the janitor here, thats all.
This is actually a post that beat me to the punch, and in glad it did. This is a discussion that needs to be had.
It shouldn’t be.
Why? Nothing about self-hosted is FOSS-only. There’s a big overlap, to be sure, but this knee-jerk reaction to paid and closed-source apps doesn’t help anyone.
Why? Nothing about self-hosted is FOSS-only. There’s a big overlap, to be sure, but this knee-jerk reaction to paid and closed-source apps doesn’t help anyone.
Oh thank you! A reasonable, sane, voice.
if they are obviously bot or dedicated marketing accounts, then no I dont think they should be here.
However, I’m not 100% opposed to closed source/paid software being discussed here, but it should clearly marked as such, with a flair that people can filter out if they so choose.
If someone posts asking about whether there are any alternatives to a paid closed source program, that’s a totally valid conversation, and if it turns out there is no FOSS alternative, then we have to talk about paid closed alternatives, find the one that offers the best value and vet for trustworthiness.
The rules say nothing about selling a paid service, but maybe “no spam” should be updated with some clarity on self promotion, so perhaps you can self promote your FOSS service with the appropriate flair, but if you are selling a paid closed service it shouldn’t be allowed?
discussing a product is not the same as someone literally advertising their paid for product.
are you ok with advertising on this community?
if they are obviously bot or dedicated marketing accounts, then no I dont think they should be here.
I would like the rules to make clear what is acceptable.
self promotion of a FOSS project is acceptable in my opinion, as long as it is clearly titled as self promotion and isn’t done in a spamming way (such as carpet bombing multiple communities with bot posts). I’d also say that donation-seeking in those posts should be kept to the creators own web pages, not in the posts themselves too.
there is a pretty easy line to draw for what is blatant advertising and what is genuine discussion of a paid service. that’s not that hard to moderate, especially when accounts are new, and carpet bombing the same posts to multiple communities, that is clearly spam.
I don’t want this community, or any community on Lemmy for that matter, to become a lucrative platform for advertisers. If someone wants to promote their own product that they made, they should have some credibility as a real person beforehand. Not a brand-new account trying to sell a subscription to an app that’s essentially still in open beta.
In this context: https://lemmy.world/post/48453617 I think it’s just fine.
OP is not asking anyone to buy their product. OP is not shilling their product. OP is asking those who run the *arr stack, and who are interested, to beta test the product, and in return, the beta tester gets the final product for free. This is how beta testing works. Where else would be a good place to have people beta test a product that integrates with what the majority of selfhosters run (*arr stack in this instance) than in a community of selfhosters?
This OP’s contribution to the community was trying to extract free labor for a soon to be paid product.
On reddit, there is a community called r/progressionfantasy, which is about a specific type of fantasy fiction. They have a rule that self promotional posts (for paid books) must be preceeded by 10 comments, and actual engagement with the community.
This is a reasonable compromise, in my opinion. Known community member who has been answering questions and contributiting to discussions?
I would be okay if they dropped a paid product of good quality and with a reasonable business model (please no vibecoded slop).
But drive by ProductNameAccount users who have never posted on lemmy before a bunch of self promotional posts? Yeah ban that shit.
@breadsmasher I wouldnt mind if they were required to include easily filtered keywords such a #ad or #closedsource or #selfpromotion or something like that.
I occasionally come across people who think they have an amazing product and when you engage they realise that its better to just opensource it.
Similarly having the opportunity to discuss their product with others in front of them can help people who might not realise their drawbacks…
If their first interaction with a community is to try to sell their shit, i don’t think they’re gonna be welcome anywhere
No advertisement is ever appropriate, period. Advertisements should be banned. I don’t mind a ‘look what I made’ post, but when the post designed to convince me to give you money, I see an immediate conflict of interest that suggests advertisement rather than information. It’s hard to draw that line without knowing intention, so I don’t think those posts should be disallowed, but if your post asks me to click a link to a product so I can give you my money, I’m downvoting.
