this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2026
206 points (97.7% liked)
Selfhosted
60071 readers
1065 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:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam.
-
Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title.
-
No trolling.
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would like some clarity on general apparent self-promotion of open source projects as well. As in, points 1-4 don't apply and 5 depends on your definition of "advertisement".
I'm bringing this up because I (once) previously attempted to share a project^1^ I maintain on here. I did take some effort to include some context and discussion points for selfhosters in order to make it more tailored and stay safe on Rule 3. It was quickly removed by mod. I tried reaching out to one of the mods to try to understand what was wrong. They were friendly and said they weren't involved and would forward to the relevant people and since then I haven't heard back. It would be very helpful to get be able to get some feedback on why it was removed so I can know how future submission attempt can be improved (and if it should happen).
^1^: FLOSS, no commercial or otherwise proprietary parts or relations, no slop in the process
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like a reasonable set of options!