this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026
120 points (97.6% liked)

Selfhosted

60482 readers
960 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

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. 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:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Edit 4:

This has more than substantial community support, and is being put into effect immediately.

Please bear with me on the sidebar edit, as I'm not going to be in front of my PC for a bit.

As previously mentioned this will remain up for the week to allow for refinement for edge cases if possible, and be aware I'm trying to see what I can do to make this more of a direct vote on specific options going forward. If anyone believes this needs revisiting after the week is up, please feel free to start a conversation on it.

May your latency be low and your uptimes be high!


Edit 3 - further refining.

There are some rather... unique interpretations of what a promo post is, along with an important note that some people lurk. Its important though that they participate somewhere to make sure its not a drive-by ad, but its fair to say that there are users in programming, linux, and other communities whose posts would be welcomed by users here.

Its also important to users here that its not just post and disappear.

So I'm adjusting to:

Promotion posts require your active participation in selfhosting or related communities, or the post will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, your post is exempt from this rule as long as you continue to engage in comments.


EDIT 2 AT THE TOP AGAIN:

It seems there is some confusion around the term "promo posts", so I'm making another adjustment for clarity. If this is muddying the waters instead, please point that out!

Self-promotion posts advertising their product requires community participation, or they will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, your post is exempt from this rule.

I worry a bit that its getting unwieldy, so feel free to suggest options to clean up the language a bit.


EDIT AT THE TOP:

Promotional posts require community participation or they will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be used in full without payment, it will be exempt from this rule.

Intended to clarify on "paywall" - it has to be open source and run in full locally, no one-time or subscription-locked payment for features, to qualify. Donations don't count as that doesn't limit use, while something like Kavita (which has non-free features behind a subscription, despite the base being open source) would not have the benefit of exemption. The rule intent hasn't changed here, just the wording on the exemption limitations.


I've gotten through (I believe) all the comments in the meta thread. So I want to establish a few things, first being a better definition on spam.

Spam is not "I don't like this and its a paid product" or "I don't like this and they used AI/LLMs".

Spam would generally be considered:

  • Mass-posting - Posting the exact same post across a bunch of of different communities, rapidly.
  • Repetitive Content (aka karma farming) - repeatedly submitting old popular content. I'll note that this is completely irrelevant on lemmy, this was more of a reddit issue due to karma.
  • Bot Activity / AI Abuse - Using scripts/bots/gen AI to automate posts and comments.
  • Unsolicited DMs - Mass private messages or chats to users, completely unsolicited

I'd say anything other than that deserves a followup rule, and this definition should go in the sidebar.

Regarding the promotional posts themselves, I think something like the 10% rule makes sense - no more than 10% of the account should be self-promotional material or comments within the community.

I do think it makes sense to include an exception for 100% free/libre open source projects. Partially open projects with a closed (paid) component should be subject to the 10% rule. So what I propose as the rule would be:

Promotional posts require community participation or they will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & without any paywalls, it will be exempt from this rule.

Questions, comments, clarifications, and harsh criticisms are welcomed in the comments. As a reminder from my intro post, and because of some comments in the other thread, I will mention:

There are people on both sides of the keyboards, so please be respectful of others.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 27 points 2 weeks ago

I think 10% self-promotion is a very fair rule. It enforces the idea that if you are going to take from the community that you also give something back.

As someone who is partially self-hosted, I think that will help keep ads from muddying the waters when I'm searching posts for setup suggestions.

[–] Tolstoy@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Nice to see the changes, but may I ask if tagging could be beneficial?

Surely it would help to sort out self promotion, help requests and informational posts.

Also, since we're all in the lemmy-bubble, a lot of people may despise vibe-coded projects, at least it looks/feels like it, so it may be worth tagging project with AI code?

I'm maybe narrow-minded, but please enlighten me^^

[–] curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I actually do want tagging of some sort, I think its a sensible approach overall. I think its a quick way to identify that your project used AI and people can quickly filter, per your example.

That said, I think that should be a separate item, and I don't want to inundate with stickies either. That was going to be my next "oh look a mod is annoying us with his opinion again" post, but then we ended up seeing a ton of promo content this week. I'm trying to stick to a mod post every week or two so everyone has a chance to see and respond to things.

That said, if you want to get that discussion ball rolling, feel free to make a meta post about it of course!

[–] Tolstoy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks for your work, time and effort. I also think, it would be better to separate it and first end the discussion about promotions and co, so it could settle before kicking of another round^^

[–] SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (16 children)

Re: AI tags. I disagree, for reasons I outlined here

https://lemmy.ml/post/48724623/26190950

TL;DR: in 2026, assume ALL projects have AI assist. Then do your due diligence.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] carlnewton@feddit.uk 13 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I saw the other thread and decided not to comment because there the conversation was looking pretty contentious, and I didn't want to put a target on my back, but as somebody who almost exclusively posts about my project on Lemmy, I thought that this might be a good opportunity to explain myself.

Due to my project being FOSS, I'm thankful that this 10% rule doesn't apply to me right now because I really don't think I could provide anything useful by spouting my opinions. I do look at questions to see if there's anything I can answer but the community is already great at that and most have more experience and knowledge of hosting infrastructure etc. I don't feel that I have a great deal of insight into what makes for a good self hosting setup, but I have a passion for writing open source software that can be self hosted, and this is the way that I feel I can contribute something meaningful.

I feel that when I post about my project, I am contributing. I'm telling you that it exists, it's free and you're welcome to try or leave it. I do try to keep it relevant so as not to hit anyone over the head with it, and I've put the detailed posts into their own community. Nobody is going to find out that some of these self hosted applications exist if they aren't told about them.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I feel that when I post about my project, I am contributing.

This is specifically the reason why the exemption would exist - because it is a contribution to the community. You don't have a paywall impacting use, the whole thing is just something being shared to others.

Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that would do leaflet drops (junk mail). People would complain. I pointed out that they were essentially spamming people with unsolicited junk. Their retort was "We don't see it as junk; we're informing potential customers".

Dunno. Pretty sure it was just wasting a lot of paper and generating some ill will. ICBW

I guess it depends on what this space is. Is it a (virtual) wood worker's get together, where journeymen pool knowledge and help each other out? Or is it something else? Is there a needle to thread here?

Whatever it is, if we never get another "I made X...here's the problem this solves...curious if anyone else..." AI ghost written "pick me, pick me", I will be very greatful.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I have opinions, but none of them well enough formed to have suggestions on the new rule.

Try it for a while and see if it works! We know this community ain’t shy about sharing when something isn’t working for them!

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 7 points 2 weeks ago

This will be up at least a day before the rule is put in place, and I'll keep the post up for the week for discussion in case there are clarifications that become apparent, so feel free to take time in considering it. And if it doesn't work or needs adjustment after, it can always be revisited too.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

Appreciate the clarification and expansion!

[–] IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I worry a bit that its getting unwieldy, so feel free to suggest options to clean up the language a bit.

I would just keep it simple: "Self promotion for your product is allowed, but this is not an advertising platform. Be sensible and participate to community. Abuse will result in post removal."

I don't think it really helps to place any arbitary limit as it might just result on spamming low-effort comments so that your "quota" stays under the 10% rule and also posting about your fantastic FOSS project daily could be equally annoying. That 10% rule could be useful when deciding if something should be removed and obviously free projects should have more relaxed "limits", but in general what counts as abuse can be decided by community feedback.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That would be effectively the same as no rule at all, so I'm going to have to say that is not an option given the recent meta thread.

The issue is not repeat posts from specific posters, or even repeats - they just aren't happening. What is happening, and caused the thread, were posts that were basically looking for beta/qa testers for their closed source app.

So "Please don't be spammy" is not enough. What the majority asked for was strong limits or an outright ban.

[–] IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I disagree that it would be the same than no rule at all, in my opinion that gives a pretty clear position on what's allowed and what's not without setting any strict limits so there's some room for interpretation for community/mods to act.

Maybe rephrasing a bit helps: "This community is not an advertising platform. Self promotion is allowed only from active members of this community. Excessive promotion will result on post removals and/or ban from the community."

What I'm afraid is that if there's a strict rule then someone will argue that "only 9,87% of my posts are promotion, I don't deserve a ban" even the rest of their content has little to no value for the conversation. And, since it'll be a rule for the community, I personally think it should apply as it's written, so it should have some kind of option to weed out smartasses trying to game the system in place.

But I'm not likely to promote anything around here, so for me it doesn't really matter, just trowing out my thoughts about the matter.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Would spamming low effort comments to fill a quota then fall under the spam bit, not necessarily self promotion bit? It would be quite obvious and from what was written in the post, moderators have more hand-wavy freedom to decide what is spam.

I have no dog in this fight either since all of my projects are open hardware so nobody cares anyway because it would cost money to build it and test it out 😂

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 3 points 1 week ago

Would spamming low effort comments to fill a quota then fall under the spam bit, not necessarily self promotion bit?

Yup! Especially if they get reported for suddenly blasting out low effort comments which would put them on "mod radar" as it were.

I have no dog in this fight either since all of my projects are open hardware so nobody cares anyway because it would cost money to build it and test it out 😂

I dunno, plenty of us do stupid things with our money to try out something we want....

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] otter@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I feel that some further refinement is needed. I agree with the sentiment behind the latest version of the rule, but I think it still doesn't address the recent issues.

The way I see it, there is a very specific type of post that has started showing up very recently, and is getting lots of downvotes. Users here are justifiably suspicious of the pattern.

The ones that get downvotes are usually:

  • from new accounts
  • the user makes one post, and at most they only responds to comments in that one post
  • the software uses the help of LLMs, while the post and/or comments are also helped by LLMs
  • the software is made to look "professional", whether it is the UI, the demo, or the README

I'm not sure what exactly the end goal is, but I don't believe the story that they all use where they "had this problem and now want to share their solution". I'm concerned that there is some other end goal, whether it is link farming, SEO manipulation, LLM search result manipulation, or it's the setup portion of a cyber attack where questionable code will be added later (if it isn't already).

Normally I would suggest to just moderate it based off of "you know it when you see it", but in this case it's difficult since it's very similar to legitimate posts. There are real users that want to post with a new account, such keeping their professional life separate from their main account. It's also hard to differentiate it based on licenses, because those recent accounts almost always license it as FOSS. I also don't think it's fair to exclude all AI assisted code, since it's very common to have that now.

Perhaps instead of a rule, we could even try some of the following:

  • To reduce the risk of OpenClaw style bots creating content here: AI is ok for the code and external text (ex. the README), but the post here should be written by a human. It's not like the post needs to be that long to express why someone should look at it, and it won't go through that many edits. Translations should be done through traditional translation software.
  • To prevent driveby posts, we could automate a comment on new posts see if a user knows where they are posting. Asking about their favourite threadiverse community, or how long they have been a member here, or even how they learned about the community might separate bots from real users. It works pretty well for our registration applications on lemmy.ca / piefed.ca etc.

On top of being suspicious, I think it boils down to "projects that have a future" and "projects that don't have a future". People in this community want to run software that is likely to stay useful and safe over time, and that's at the core of why these recent ones are downvoted.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Normally I would suggest to just moderate it based off of "you know it when you see it", but in this case it's difficult since it's very similar to legitimate posts.

Precisely the problem.

The community has been really good about down voting the more troublesome ones, but a clean solution to this really isn't easy.

I'm hoping this can be where disclosures/tagging can really help, but this has a lot of roots in how the prior mod was handling things. Anything they didn't like was a rule 3 removal, so appropriate rules I don't think were made, and as a popular community.... Yeah.

I'm doing what I can starting with the most problematic that I can see (first the removals that didnt quite fit, now the promos in general, next ai/ai disclosures, and then we'll have to see.

Part of it too is that the community is not necessarily full of anti-ai folks (though there is one who has been following me around and downvoting), but against irresponsible ai use. I think a few posts have shown that (ai for translation, documentation, a snippet here and there that got reviewed and refined after by a human, etc).

I'm of the same mind that its some kind of SEO or maybe telemetry they want to sell, but I'm not sure.

That said, I'm all ears on options / discussions.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

This sounds good to me, thank you for putting in the time for this!

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm a lurker, I potentially comment but usually there is not much to add when the pros have posted, so if I'd try to promote my secure, takedownsafe P2P sharing protocol (if people started using it, everyone could have a web-space, backups, a "drop-box", an online presence, and more), it'd be kicked?

I'm just trying to understand where I am, the overall rule is completely understandable.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 3 points 1 week ago

No, you're pretty active in general, so it would be left up.

But I see what you're saying, it would be better to amend the community part. The 10% should really be said as your activity and not specific to the community.

I'm going to make an edit, thanks

[–] i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Are Home Assistant and Frigate exempted? Home Assistant is free and open source and you can self host it, but there is a built-in feature where you can pay a subscription to use Nabu Casa's ingress server and cloud GPUs, and many of the integrations are only useful if you have paid money for some piece of hardware or have a subscription to a cloud service. Frigate is free and open source, but it has built-in support for specially packaged computer vision models that are offered for a fee that supports the project. I wouldn't consider either application crippleware, but you can pay money to people who are affiliated with the project for a direct benefit that is related to the software.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Great question.

To be clear, this is about promo posts, and has nothing to do with discussing either of these projects.

So if HA decided to come in here and promo... Yes, that would be under the exemption, thats not a feature limitation but an add-on service. HA is not limited in any way by the subscription option with nabu casa.

Frigate on the other hand I don't think would fall under the exemption. You can't load models yourself - a feature specifically limited by subscription. If frigate devs came in to promote themselves, they would not fall under the exemption.

Again, either project (and closed source commercial projects) still can be discussed or posted about, this is specifically promo posting.

[–] i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You can load models for Frigate yourself, and the documentation tells you how to do it, but the recommended Frigate+ models are easier to use. For example, downloading and configuring YOLO-NAS becomes just copying and pasting a plus:// URL when you're signed in to Frigate+.

As another example, I would consider GitLab not to be free because GitLab is a for-profit company, the open source version of GitLab intentionally lacks features that would be particularly useful to business users, and you can pay GitLab to get those features in a special GitLab distribution distributed under difference licensing terms. If GitLab had a plugin model, and unaffiliated developers created paid plugins for those features, then I think GitLab itself could be considered free. But if paid plugins were developed by the same developers, would that make it not free again?

More strange examples:

  • Redis, which relicensed to a non-Free license in 2024, but would have still been usable by most people who are self hosting. Redis is available under AGPL since 2025.
  • All Hashicorp software, such as Terraform and Vault, which relicensed to a non-Free license in 2023, but is still usable for most people who are self hosting.
  • Docker, which is only free on Linux since it relicensed in 2022. Docker Engine only runs on Linux, but the closed-source Docker Desktop runs Docker Engine in a Linux VM and wraps the API to make it almost seamless on Windows and Mac OS, and for that you may need to pay a subscription.

I guess to me it seems like there's this gray area where you start having to think about intention and whether the software is really intended to be usable for the purposes that people in this community will want to use it for without having to pay the person doing the promoting.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 3 points 2 weeks ago

You can load models for Frigate yourself, and the documentation tells you how to do it, but the recommended Frigate+ models are easier to use.

Ah, that didn't used to be the case. Or it changed quickly? I don't recall tbh, but "easier to use" wouldn't bar self-promo in that case, since you can load the models.

Redis, which relicensed to a non-Free license in 2024, but would have still been usable by most people who are self hosting. Redis is available under AGPL since 2025.

Not really weird, since v8 its AGPL, so its a fully open license. Prior license isn't relevant.

All Hashicorp software, such as Terraform and Vault, which relicensed to a non-Free license in 2023, but is still usable for most people who are self hosting.

Not a free license. No self-promo. OpenTofu? Totally fine (and personally recommended btw)

Docker, which is only free on Linux since it relicensed in 2022. Docker Engine only runs on Linux, but the closed-source Docker Desktop runs Docker Engine in a Linux VM and wraps the API to make it almost seamless on Windows and Mac OS, and for that you may need to pay a subscription.

Docker desktop - no self promo. Docker, promo OK.

I'm not seeing the complexity.

The 10% rule is a perfect approach, in my opinion. It would stop the people creating accounts to only promote their projects while also promoting community engagement.

[–] EarMaster@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I find this too prohibitive. Even with the exception this would make me think twice about a promo post and maybe even refrain me from posting at all. For non-except services it is even worse. It may lead to spam posts or users trying to categorize contributions into useful and not useful posts.

Self hosting does not end for everyone with free services. Some of us are happy to pay for services provided by others and I would really like to read about these here as well. I know this is not the intention of the rule, but it will be its result.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think some people are having trouble understanding what a promotion post is, thus the edit.

If you are not from that company, you can post about it, have discussions, talk about features in new versions, whatever. If you are from a company trying to promote your own product, that is when the rule applies.

How does this in any way impact your ability to post about a non-free product?

[–] ken@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Thank you for thoughtful engagement!

I think that becomes even more problematic. Why is it better that I shill for a company I'm getting kickbacks from (some VPN providers excel at this game) rather than one I'm responsible for? Besides, this just lead to submarining ("viral marketing" is an entire industry!) and people pretending to "have just stumbled across this project, what do you guys think?" or being "just a happy customer".. And to some extent t becomes a game of social status, where well-connected people can just ask their friends to post on their behalf.

Judge the message and topic, not the messenger (as long as they are human acting in good faith and not "written with help by AI", obv).

Besides of those issues, my personal preference would be to keep the focus on self-hosting. So talk of hardware or shipped software might be on-topic but not service providers. There are plenty of places to discuss cloud-hosting, VPNs, which PaaS is best, or whatnot.

And I would actually be much more interested in seeing a post from a founder talking about things their company is doing relevant to self-hosters, vs yet another post of "which provider is best right now and what do you use?" or "Company X currently has a sale/launched product Y".

While it might filter out some good stuff, I would be all for a ban of any promotion of commercial or proprietary products and services alltogether but allow for self-hostable and in particular FLOSS stuff (where I guess some carve-out or clever formulation could be made to allow for commercial but self-hostable software - either stance on that one seems fine to me).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] EarMaster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So everyone just adds a "I'm not working for x" to their posts?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I do think it makes sense to include an exception for 100% free/libre open source projects.

Here we go again.

Both libre projects and free projects can make money via donation, patreon, or other business models. Allowing them a "vibe check" exception and not closed source or anything in between is propagating this notion that money and open source are mutually exclusive.

I appreciate the effort to establish some rules, but this is further entrenching the Lemmy self-hosting community in a mode where it's a FOSS-only space, which is both uninclusive and inaccurate.

If what you want is a FOSS-only space for self-hosting, I'd like to know that so I can find or start a similar community where ppl who do use closed source tools can post questions.

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 15 points 2 weeks ago (18 children)

If you think this is about what I want, you haven't been reading any of my comments.

This comes out of what the community commented in the meta thread, with a bit of my own wording on top to meet the requests.

Also

I’d like to know that so I can find or start a similar community where ppl who do use closed source tools can post questions.

That isn't promotional material and would have nothing to do with this rule, so I'm not sure what you're driving at here.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›