Selfhosted

60320 readers

588 users here now

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.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

302

[META] Are paid for, closed source projects, being advertised on this community, appropriate? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by breadsmasher@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

147 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

my point is - there is a difference between an open source homegrown project that might be useful, vs closed source paid for projects from brand new accounts

some replies are misunderstanding, somehow.

I am against

brand new accounts who:

first post is a brand new project
project is closed source
project will cost money
is asking for free testing
the post is literally an advertisement

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I've only more recently taken over here as a result of the previous mod being overzealous on Rule 3, I commented on a better approach, they rage quit and made me and another person mod. There were quite a few clearly relevant projects that got removed, and obviously yours fit in that territory. You can see the currently stickied post about rule 3 here in the community for reference.

So I agree that clarification needs to happen. Right now I'm applying the rules in the lightest way possible, trying to remove only spam right now because the rules are extremely generic and subjective.

My only 'thing' would be that I don't consider this my community to hand down rules from on high, which is why I have encouraged people to make posts like this one so there can be community consensus.

[–] ken@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Thank your for replying, this is encouraging and sounds like moderation of this community is shaping up.

Whichever side the ruling falls I think that feedback channel would be very good. Just having a way for a submitter to ask from mod(s) why the submission was targeted might be the difference between them turning into a great contributor vs either just leaving or starting to play circumvention games (in especially bad cases turning into antagonistic trolls). Speaking from how I've seen those dynamics play out in other communities.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

DM, a meta thread, or even a post in YPTB is always an option, I'm not sure what other options on feedback are sensible/realistically available.

A meta thread posted by a member of the community, and the discussion that followed, is what brought this up to the forefront in the first place.

[–] ken@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 week ago

Sounds like a reasonable set of options!